
ass 



3^ 



V53 






UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS. 



ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF, 



IN CASE OF 



THOMAS HICKS, EIR.OFCAPT, ISAAC HICKS. 



VEBSUS 



THE UNITED STATES, FOR HP-PW, 

UNDER THE RESOLVEJOF OCTOBER 21, 1180. 
Allso, 

IN BEHALF OF THE HALF PATT DEBTS DUB TO THE OFFICERS 
OF THE REVOLUTION GENERALLY, 

XUBMCIHO 

THB LAWS AND DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF SAME. 

AL80, 

•SUftGBSTIONS IN BEHALF OF ALL THE CREDITORS OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 



# 



BY NATHANIEL HATCH, 

H: 614, Twelfth Street, Washington, D. C 




i^gj^^ 



OCTOBER, 1869. 



M 38 



05 



T-i 



3 


'^ 


Cm 




^-^ 


X> 


^ 










s? 


//J 






f-* 










o 


1^ 






5^ 


Si 








c> 




1 






Q 


■73 


^■^ 


'W 


^ 


H 


a 


e 




t>. 


<J 


a 


;;S 


§- 


is 


ffi 


m 










s 


I' 


S 


o 


1-5 


3 


&< 




aj 


Ed 


e 


cS 


a. 


1— 1 


"o 


'^ 


C 


0? 


^ 


o 




o 


£. 


<1 


73 
C 




5 

ha. 


b 

> 

s 


H 
''I 




s 







A 




y 


c 


c3 




rt 


rt 




«- 






fcD 


O 


<a 


o 


n 




S2 




'S 


o, 


„,_, 


'O 




t3 


O 




«s 


fl 



as/ 'tsy 




.o 




u 




en « x: 




lO . , -t^ 










&3 - 






£ S5 
s o ^ 


^H 


^d 


§.S'^ 


H O 


55 [T) 


o:z 


'-s'-s 


= 5 > 




— 3d 




"2 tc 




^ >>.. 




.'^ = -§ 





t- V -^ 



Jr.^ 



P^ 






c fco 





■TS 


a> 


-C 


cc 


es 


3 


^ 


O 


Mj 


K 


g 


P3 - ^ 




0>^^ 2 
■— "-^ J ^ 










-W 




t> "^ w 


3 



^^^1 


OJ 



c 

<; t^ !^ 3 O O K^' 

^-; ^ ?^ pa ^ H "f 
d t-i K <i O « d 



^1 



P^-? 5 . 



3 rt i ^ 



00 



H 

'tn 2 1^' -^ 

^ O) -2 td 

-— , in< 
^:?; .<! 



a^ 






=^5 



CO 5 



1^ 



.\\ 33 



ISi ifsf 



B y N O I^ S I S 

OF THJ! 

LAWS AND ARGUMENT 

IN BEHALF OF 

THE HALF-PAY CLAIMS, 

UNDER THE RESOLVE OF OCTOBER 21, 1780. 



O 

These cLaims consist of three several and contiguous con-i 
siderations, which were finally, by the act of October 21^ 
1780, blended in one entire contract : 

1. Grants of land by the resolves of September 16 and 
18, 1776 ; 

2. Seven years half pay by the resolve of May 15, 1778j 

3. Seven years half pay in specie or current money, Octo- 
ber 3, 1780; 

4. Extended and reaffirmed by act of December 31^ 1781 ; 

5. Extended also by act of January 17, 1781 ; 

6. Extended also by act of March 8, 1 785 ; 

All by the Congress of the old Confederation, which, 
in the immortal words of Washington, constituted a legal 
contract for half pay for life, pledged to the officers, was a 
debt, a just debt, a constitutional one, with all the attri- 
butes of a common debt ; and that it was more than a com- 
mon debt — a debt of honor and of gratitude, the equivalents 
of which were the blood of the officers and the independence 
of the country ; that it was a perpetual debt, therefore, 
which could never be cancelled until it was fully and fairly 
paid. 




whether tliey make in favor of a creditor (if pucIi a result, shall ever ])• had,) 
or that of the United States. '^. But if tho}' shall feel at liberty to disregard 
their own, (hey arc bound to respect and obey the laws of Congress, and this 
act of Congress, in the case of Dr. Eaird. So long !'S law and the oath of 
office shall be considered binding and sacred, these claims are forever estab- 
lished, and this court need not refer them b;!ck to the discretion of Congress. 
The joint action of the court and Congress, in this case, leaves notliing for 
the discretion of either. Nothing remains for this court, or Congress, but 
simply the discharge of a high and imperative dut}'. It only remains for 
Congress to vote the means of payment. It is no longer necessary for this 
court to add their seal of repudiation to these just debts, in opposition ito 
the opinion of the late and much lamented Chief JuBtico Gilchrist. ■ < •'■■ 

17. That the solicitor admits the half pay contract still subsists, but that 
it cannot avail those who received their certificates. This objection was one 
on which this court was divided in t'leir opinion. And Congress decided 
that the reception, even in money, of a less sum, was not an accord and sat- 
isfaction of the half pny contract, which was payable in rpeeie. 

18. These creditors do not complaia thnt the holders of these certificates 
funded, or omitted to fund them, under the ret nf Angust 4, 1790, inas- 
much as they had obtained them at r small value, and conld well nfTord to 
fund them at a loss of one lialf. But the payees of the Imlf pay covtract do 
object to any attempt on the part of the ijnited States to re:^nsc{lirte and 
ao^ain connect these old repudiated rertiflcates witli th"^ half pay contract, 
except so fiir as they may go r* a p'-yment jn^n fnvti. They had long been 
disconnected and cannot he again connreted, except in express violation of 
.all principless of law and equity, as ppecially declared by the 9th section of. 
the funding act (1). Nor iJ it their own pntrerings and insolven,ey of whieli 
they complain. It is by the litter po'^orty and insolvency of theuovernment 
by whic^ they have been injured' nnd of whieli they now charge the Govern- 
ment to have so long been disregirdfal of its lienor r.nd those sacred obligfi-' 
tions. 

19. The acts of March 22 and July 4, 178S. v-cre not passed for the 
benefit of any class of creditors; Init tls^ey were thr* result of the great and 
imperative necessities and utter insolvency of the (jovernment at that early 
and trying time, merely to ^itspend the dii}' of payment. 

20. That these contracts embraced the promi.se of land as well as money; 
and the contract has been renewed over seven liundred times by tbc issuing 

of land warrants and patents since 1S28 to tlie present time. '^' ' '■" 

Congress sometimes, by hasty legislation, are u-^just. 



The acts of 





The evidence in this, as in all these cases, proves beyond' the possibility 
of doubt — 1. That the act of 22d i^Iarcli, 178^, was not in its terms, in any 
one important particular, such as was eontcroplated in the address of the 
officers. It is also proved, beyond the pnssibiHty of a doubt, that even that 
act never was adopted by a " majority of the officers of the several States."' 
That the act itself, as passed, v.'helher wiih or without the consent of the 
ofiicer?, expiesslv declares tjia*. the o|]ic.er.s, iiidividually, shall not have the 
right of option tfi r^efuse i^id fcVrtfSoatot: <' '*'''i 



*.Tlie driiy.c^y oi m<i\i Vijrluciea|S certifieaies •ould,.iY3^.hiivj^_bee(ft Qoijsidered 
sdvantag^eous. T}ie opi<;'crs did uot o,btain a sum ceftaiii for a cpntingeat 
i^ght; ' It. canuot'bo said iticy thereby recpived something b-'foi'e they wdre 
entitled to anything; M^ny years of half pay h;id become due before these 
certifieate& iTVierc issued, aud the value' in specie, or geourity, , of one yeaar';^ 
^i^rpay y.ould Jiaye .purcbAsec^.four t}n\e6 the ;amo,unt of the; full pay cef^ 
tifica'teisj 'Jhere is uqt a- particle of evidence tUat th3 right of option to re- 
ffise these certificates wa^j granted to any oiSccr. The records of Congress,- 
to whiclithe attention of the court h:^'beeu' called, prove beyond all doubt 
that the officers not only •' complained" , of this unjust measure, but that 
Congress often udoiittcd, in different forms, the justice and legalitj' of these 
debts. That the- full pay proposition never was fully executed by the old or 
BOW Govcrument. It was never even attempted to be shown by the defence 
that either of the acts' had been complied with. It is not the duty of the 
ci?editor to alledge or prove the. compUancc of a contract. ij 

Every school bpy understandd the term necuritj/ to mean safety, to make 
saf^I Everybody would 3ay that the nolo of an insolvent debtor, whose 
paper is selling in market for two and a half dollars to the hundred, is nei- 
ther specie nor security, even if it should bo negotiable. The proposition of 
Congress in answer to the address of the officers, was to pay or secure all 
their four classes of claims, us well us commutation by substantial securities, 
to be furnished by the several Statcj. Nothing was said about an endorse- 
ment, or a mortgage, nor was any such thing inferred. Nothing was anti- 
cipated by the way of security, except that which i§ clearly expressed in the 
act of January 25, 1783. Wa ask simply that tho court, in giving effect to 
these several acts of Congress, may be guided by a true aud common sense 
construction ; tho acts speak for themselves, and if they decide one point, 
they should decide all which arc urged. 

The officers never proposed to give a release of their half pay, which was 
of three times the value of the amount of the full pay, and receive only the 
promise of the Government, which they already held. Is it not unreasona- 
ble to suppose that any man of common sense would willingly give up a note 
against the same debtor for one thousand dollars, aud take in exchange one 
for four hundred dollars against tho same insolvent debtor? It is not rea- 
sonable to presume that he would do so. Nor is it reasonable to presume one 
is more certain than the other. No, may it please the court, while good morals 
and common sense shall have any connection with justice, and regard for 
truth shall prerail in our national Legislature, or our courts, every act of repu- 
diation of these just debts will meet the just animadversion of the people 
thrpughout the country. The old Confederation expired in insolvency, and 
the new has had'to contend with embargos and wars, and worse than all, with 
repudiators of all claims, until the grave has closed over the original creditors, 
and very near those of their surviving children. 

We always have had, and shall continue to ai;vc, repudiators of debts, no 
matter however sacred they may be. Many of them have become the just 
objects of execration. God grant that they may seldom be found in places of 
ppwer or positions of honor. The rights of property, whether it consists in 
^ebts against tl^s United States, or otherwise, must be respected. 



viil 

The acts of March 3, 1855, and May 14, 1856, were 
founded entirely upon a gratuitom consideration, requiring 
only 14 days nominal service, (which was paid for in good 
money,) entitled for this service to 160 acres of land, while 
those of the Revolution served many years without pay 
and without any land. These acts gave it to the soldiers, 
widows, or minor children, and most unjustly discriminated 
against the same of the Revolution, by confining the benefit 
to their minor children. This was evidently by accident or 
omission, and I hope to see justice done in this particular. 
A declaration of the children furnishing proof of their 
descent, places of residence, from what State, and line of 
service, was of more value than the land,and became another 
record to the memory of those who did so much for the cause 
of freedom and humanity. 



UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS. 

•>Wio-ionoribo No. 1764. 

Thomas Hicks, Exr. of the Estate of Capt. Isaac Hicks, 

. .. • va. 

The United States. ' 

1. This is an applicdiiOh' to this cotiri; f^oi^ the 'Vbi(!/v^^yhf kiikf^ 
ance due for Half Pay, with interest, promised to the said Captain 
Hicks for his services as captain in the third Battalion of the Geor- 
gia Continental line of the American army, during the war of the 
Revolution — (also for services performed as regimental Paymaster.) 
The Half Pay to commence at the date of the peace, 1783, to the time 
of his death Juuc 20, 1817. "■' '' 

This claim is presented and payment urged on the ground of a 
legal contract, fully sustained by principles of law and equity. He 
does not ask or claim anything as a gratuity, pension or arrears of 
pension, but the payment of a rfe6#, just di,xidmeritoriotis debt, founded on 
the most sacred considerations, and strict legal right. He does not 
in presenting this just claim, ask that this government, either 
throifgh this court or through Congress, shall assume the pay-., 
ment of all the old unliquidated claims of the old confedera- 
tion. They ask no deduction for depreciation of government paper. 
Nor does he ask to be remunerated for i,ho fortune expended and the 
five years' service rendered without pay previous to the date of said 
contract. He asks the payment of ihesa just Half Pay debts— \, Be- 
cause, by all the principles of law and equity they arc justly, equita- 
bly and positively due ; 2, Because they are free from all possible influ- 
ence of conjecture, or uncertainty ; 3, Because their amount is un- 
changeably Jixed by a recorded public law of this nation. If anything 
has ever been paid toward this sacred contract, thut' payment is also 
an unchanging record. Nothing is left to conjecture, nothing to un- 
written or unrecorded evidence. All payments made are to be ducted, 
not at their value, but for their /?/// amount. What court, or mem- 
ber of congress can ask for more? These balanc^s of Half Pay due 
to these officers are as fully and conclusively proved as any event of 
the war or the Govcrnnient, as fully and conclusively established and 
rests on as sure foundation as that of the Washingt(.n Monument, 
which is being reared to the memory of those creditors and their 
noble deeds, rebpking every act of repudiation which stains the rc-i 
cords of those meritorious and legal debts. 



It is time that tho assumed facts of pretended settlement of these 
just debts through subsequent acts of the old confederation -Avere 
bettor understood and the riglits of these creditors were more justly 
appreciated. They are not, may it please the court, made up of mere 
words of responsibility ; because the government at that time Avas 
utterly bankrupt, and had repudiated and fixed a value on its securi- 
ties of only two and half dollars, to the hundred — but this half-pay 
contract was supposed to be inspired with the plighted honor of the 
nation which would survive tlie depressing influences of poverty and 
discouraging prospects which then prevailed — made at a time when 
the Government had nothing but their honor to pledge. I will with 
leave of the court, 1st, consider the half-pay claims generally; ind, 
endeavor to point out to the court, the distinction which prevails in 
the present case, as well as these officers, who were deranged by the 
act of December 31st, 1781. What are the acts of the old con- 
federation on which these half-pay debts are predicated? 

.1st. The resolve of September 18, 177G, which promised to thosp, 
who should serve to the end of the "War, Bounty Land. (1) ,; ,,-h 

2nd. By the resolve of 1.5th May, 1778, there was promised" |p^ 
them in addition to the land, seven years half-{ ay. (2) ot^H 

3rd. On the 3rd October, 1780, Congress reorganized the arm(^ 
to take effect on the 1st of January, 1781, and promised those who, 
were retired, seven years' half-pay in specie or other current money 
equivalent; and also grants of land at the close of the. war, agreeably, 
to the rcsolutipn 16th September. t],ji^..{Z.),.^,. 

(1.) "i?*.so/rerf, That in addition to money bounty of twenty dollars to each non-com- 
missioned officerand private soldier, Congress mal^e provision for granting land, in the^ 
following proportions, to the officers and toldiers who shall engage in the service, and' 
continue therein to the close of the war, or until discharged by Congrese, and io the; 
representatives of such officers and soldiers as shall be slain by the enemy, viz : to a' 
colonel, 500 acres ; lieutenant colonel, 450 ; major, 400 ; captain, 300 ; lieutenant, 200 ; 
ensign, 150; each non-commissioned officer and soldier, 150 acres." 

This was extended, by resolve of September 18, 1776, <-to all who are or shall be 
enlisted for that term.'' This was "extended to the general officers,-' in the following 
proportions: major general, 1,100 acres; brigadier general, 850 acres— August 12, 
1780. September 22, 1780, it was extended "to the several officers of the medical 
department, except the clerks and stewards." 

In Congress, May 15, 1778 

(2) "■Resolved, unanimously, That all military officers commissioned by Cangress, who 
are now or hereafter may be in the service of the Uni'ed States, and shall continue 
therem during the war, and not hold any office of profit under the States, or any of 
them, shall, after the conclus'ou of the war be entitled to receive annually for tho term 
of seven years, if they live so long, one half of the present pay of such officers : Provi" 
ded. That no general officer of the cavalry, artillery, or infantry, shall be entitled to re> 
ceivemore than the one-half of the pay of a colonel of such corps, respectively: And,pro^ 
vided, Tliat this rcsolufon shall not extend to any officer in tlie service of the United 
States, unless he shall h ive taken an oath of obligation to, and shall actually reside 
within, some one of tho United States. 

''Resolved, unaniinoxtsly. That every non-commissioned military officer and soldier 
who hath enlisted or shall enlist into tho service of these States for daring the war, and 
shall contmue therein to the end thereof, shall'be entitled to receive a further reward of 
eighty dollars at the expiration of the war." 

(3) "Congress, on the 8d October, 1780, re. .organized the army, to take effect on the Ist 

of January, 1781, the effect of which was to throw many of the officers out of service 

They therefore at the same time adopted the following resolution ; • 



3 

The atteiitiou of the. court is invited to notice the fact that this act 
which passed after the government had become utterly insolvent, the 
seven years half-pay was made payable in '-specie or other current 
Tnoney equivalent." 

4th. 18 da} s after the passage of this act Congress passed that of 21st 
October, 1780, extending the seven years' half-payto during life, with- 
out altering the mode of payment, which was therefore payable in 
specie or other current money equivalent,(4:) and not in the depreciated 
paper, and this was by the act of August 24, 1780, extended to the 
widows and orphan children. (5) 

Those half-pay contracts were often recognized by acts of Congress, 
before and subsequent to the peace. (6) 

That the officers fully performed and fulfilled the contract on 
their part is not controverted, and -these creditors claim that each 
officer individually acquired a vested right of property, therein of 
which he could not be divested without a full consideration, or due 

■ "And whereas, by the foregoing arrangement, many deserving ofScer^ must become 
■iupernumerary, and it is proper that regard be had to them : 

"Resolved, That from the time the reform of the army takes place, they be entitled to 
half pay for seven years, in specie, or other current money equivalent, and also grants of 
lands at the close of the war, agreeably to the resolution of the 16th ol' September, 1776." 

(4) "That resolve is in the following words: 

"[1780, October, 21.'\'-Resolved, That the Commander-in-chief, and commanding of- 
ficer in the Southern oepartment, direct the ofiBcers of each State to meet and agree up 
on the officers for the regiments to be raised by their respective States, from those who 
incline to continue in service; and where it cannot be done by agreement, to be deterniin- 
ed by seniority, and make return to those who are to remain; which is to be transmitted 
to Congress, together with the names of the officers reduced, who are to be allowed half 
pay for life. ■' ' ^ 

"That the officers who shall continue in the service to the end of the war, shall also be 
entitled to half pay during life, to commence from the time of their reduction." 

(5)In Congress, August 24, 1780. 

"Resolved: That the resolution of the 15th May, 1778, granting half pay for seven 
years to the Officers of the army who should continue in service to the end of the war, 
be extended to the widows of those officers who have died' or shall hereafter die in the 
service; to commence from the time of such officer's death, and continue for the term of 
seven years; or if there be no widow, or in case of her death or intermarriage, the said 
half pay be given to the orphan children of the officer dying as aforesaid^ if he shall have 
left any." 

(6) Resolution — In Congress, December 31, 1781. 

"Resolved, That all officers of the line of the amiy, below the rank of brigadier genera!, 
who do not belong to the line of any particular State or separate corps ot the army, and 
are entitled by acts of Congress to pay and subsistence, shall have the same, with the 
depreciation of their pay, made good to the first day of January, 1782. 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of war be, and he is hereby directed to make returns 
to Congress, on or before the 20th day of January, 1782, of the names and rank of all 
the officers necessary to be retained in service, that are included in the preceding reso- 
lution. 

"Resolved, That all officers included in the foregoing description, and whose names 
shall not be inserted in the returns directed to be made by the preceding resolution, shall 
be considered as retiring from service on the first day of January, 1782 ; provided al- 
ways, that nothing contained in these resolutions shall be construed so as to prevent < r 
hinder any officer that shall retire as aforesaid from enjoying all the emoluments thit 
ha may, upon retiring, be entitled to by any former acts of Congress." 

Resolution— In Congress, March 8, 1785. 

"Resolved, That the officers who retired under the resolve of the 31st Deceruber, 1781, 
are equally entitled to half pay or commutation, with those officers who retired uodcr 
the resolves of the 3d and 21st October, 1780." 



process of law, or by his own free and voluntary relinquishment, and 
in the language of the able Committee of the House of the 1st Sep- 
tember of 35th Congress, (report No. 125.) 

"Auy act ol Congress impairing or affecting this right is repugnant to the Constitution 
and void. Under this contiact eacli otticer bacamo entitled trom the United States to 
halt-pay, according to the rank he held in the army from tne close of the revolutionary 
war, or from the time of his discbarge trom the service until the period of his death, to be 
paid yearly and every year during that period, and tor the peribrraance of such contract 
on the part of the United States the faith of the nation was soleuDilt/ pledged. The com-^ 
mittee a'so find that such officers were also entitled to an interest of six per cent, per an- 
num on the yearly payments, and on iheaggregatofrom the date ofthe officer's death to 
the time of settlement, under the resolution of Congress, passed June 3, 1784, which 
provides "That an interest of six per cunt, shall be allowed to all the creditors of the 
United States for supplies furnished or fiervice.i done, from the time that payment be- 
came due. ' In alluding to this resolve, Chief Justice Gilchrist, ofthe Court of Claims, 
in a recent decision says: '.No language could be more express or free from doubt 
than this. The resolution was passed from a feeling that it was Just and right that inier- 
est should be paid from the t me the half pay became due, fi;.d it was a voluntary con- 
tract on the part of tie United States constituting a legal claim against them which no 
subsequent legislation could release without the consent oT the other pirty." The above 
contract for half pay^ although made under the confederation, is equally binding upon 
Congress, for by the sixth article ofthe Constitution ofthe United States, suction one, 
"all debts contracted or engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, 
shall be as valid aga.nst the United States under this Constitution as under the confede 
ration." 

Thus, this Government became the assignee and Trustee of the 
public domain and assumed the liabilities of the old confederation. 

I propose to examine, first, how far this half-pay contract was 
effected by any thing done by the old confederation. 

These creditors further say, that they have been prohibited from 
enforcing the payment of their claim against the United States by 
any court of law, that said Captain Hicks demanded his claim to half 
pay very often ofthe old confederation, without being able to obtain 
the same, as also of the present government of the United States. — 
That said half pay debts have been often 'presented to Congress and 
always received the most favorable consideration of the many com- 
mittees to whom they have been referred, who consisted of able and 
profound jurists, and statesmen to whose reports I invite the attention 
of the Court : 

The reports of Mr. Madison in 1783, Mr. NeKon in 1810. Mr. Johnson in 1818, Mr. 
Sergeant, December 10, 1819, Mr. Hemphill. January 8, 1826, Mr. Burgess, May 8, 
1820, and February 11, 1828; the act of May 15, 1828, Senator Walker's report in 1852. 
Senator Evans', February 4, 1854, and Mr. Broom, April 4, 185G, show a repeated re- 
cognition ofthe contract on the part of Congress; but no general provision appears to 
have been made bv Congress for the reliet of these offii^ers, until the act of May 15, 
1828, in which the contract of 1780 is fully recognized. They are there acknowledged 
as creditors of the government, and not pensioners. The act. however, applies to the few 
surviving officers only, and made no provision for those who died before its passage. (1) 

(1) AN ACT for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers ofthe Army of the 

Revolution. 

Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c , That each of the surviving officers of the array of the 
Revolation, in the continental line, who was entitled to hUf pay by the resolve of Oc- 
tober twenty first, seventeen hundred and eighty, be authorized t > receive, out of any 
money in t»e Trea.^ury not otherwise appropriated, the amount of hi'* full pay in said 
line, according to his rank in the line, to begin on the third of March, on^ tLousand 



I 



It may be well to letuember, in connection with these claims, that long after the pas- 
sage of the acts of May 15, 1828, and June 7, 1832, and alter the act of July (i, 1836, in 
behalf of the widows, the Senate Committee. on Revolutionary Claims, May 11, 1838, 
reported that, 

'♦After an assiduous investigation, the commttee concUi;le that no legislition subsq- 
quent to the 21st October, 1780, could, or that "by a fa r construction di ), contravene 
or in any manner impair the claim of the oflicers of the ;irmy, or any such class of 
officers, to the half-pay promised them by the act ot Oct. 21, 1780. The hilf-pay for 
life contracted by the act of October, 1780, to be paid to ihe officers of the army for 
certain services to be performed by them, indanta became a vested right, of which sub 
sequent legislation nor nothing whatever could divest the officer, save a failure on his 
part to perform the prescribed service. And it would be a libel on the good sense and 
justice of the distinguished statesmen and patriots of that period, to imigine, even that 
any legislation subsequent to the 21st of October, 1780, had for its object to impair the 
deliberate engagement made by that act to allow half-pay for life to the ofiicers ot the 
army. 
.ij J' ■-•;, 

.tli» conceded by the United States that these claims were never 
settled or paid as half pay. But it is attempted to be shown by the 
United States that they were liquidated in pursuance of a subsequent 
act of Congress of the 22d day of March, A. D., 1783. 

As this act assumes that it was passed in answer to the memorial of 
the officers of the several lines. It is very imiwrtant that the causes 
which induced that address to Congress and the object and Avislies of 
the officers should be understood, and the action of Con<>;ress upon 
that address explained. (1) .,, 



eight hundred and twenty^six, and to continue during his natural life: Provided, That 
under this act, no officer .shall be entitled to receive a larger sum than the lull pay of a 
cap'ain in said line. 

Attorney General Butler, in a very able and elaborate opinion of February 3, 1"834, 
shows very conclusively that the act of 1828 was to be rejrardei as an acknowledgtnertt 
of a debt equitably due, than as conferring gratuitous p. nsions. 

By this act, the claimants, or those who bad survived, were acknow kidged as credi- 
tors of the Government; and the second section declares, that any pension to which 
said officer was entitled was to cease alter the passage of this act. 

(1) Resolution of March 22, 1783. 

On the report of a comnii tee, consisting of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Dyer, and Mr. Bed- 
ford, to whom was referred a motion of Mr. Dyer, together with the memorial of the 
army, and the report of the committee thereon, Congress came lo the following reso- 
lutions : 

1. Whereas the officers of the several lines under the immediate command of his 
Excellency General VVasbington, did, by their late memorial, transmitted by their com. 
mittee, represent to Congress that the half pay granted by sundry resolutions was regard- 
ed ill an unfavorable light by the citizens of some ot these States, who would prefer 
a compensation tor a limited term of years, or by a sum in gross, to an estab ishment 
for life; and did, on that account, solicit a compensation pi their halt pay for an equiv . 
alent in one of tlie two modes above mentioned, in order to remove all subject of dis- 
sitiafaction from the minds ot their fellow citizens : An! whereas Congress aie desir- 
ous as well of gratifying the reasonable expectations of the officers of the army as re 
moving all oi jections which may exist in any part ot the United States to the principle 
of the half pay establishment, for which the faith of the U nited States hath been pletlged; 
pe suaded that those objections can only arise from the nature of the compensation, not 
from any indisposition to compensate those whose services, sacrifices and sufferings, 
hive so just a title t > the approbation and rewards ot their country. 

2. Therefore resolved. That such officers as are now in service, and shall continue 
therein to the end of the war, shall bj eiiHtlfd to receive the amount of five years' full 
piy in motley or securities on interest at six per cent, per annum, as Congress shall 
find most convenient, instead of the halt pay promised for life by the resolution of the 
2l8t day of October, 1780; the said securitifS to be such as shall be given to oiher cred^ 
itora of the United States; provided it be at the option of the linei of the respective 



6 

It will be seen that the 2d section of the act prohibits the officers 
individually of the several lines from dissenting- from the same. 
It will also be seen by the act of March 22, 1783, that it assumes in 
fixing a value to the life estat6 of each officer, tliat they were all of 
equal a^^e and health, that tlie life of an officer of thirty was valued 
no more than one of seventy; which was utterly at variance with and 
opposed to tlie rights of property which was admitted to be in each 
officer. It will also be seen, by referring to the same section, tkit 
no time was named in that act, in which the same was to be made 
payable, or in what way the amount was to be secured. But the cr8>^ 
ditors were entitled by the half-pay contract to "specie or other cur- 
rent money equivalent." And therefore Ave find the great object of 
complaint and distress of the' officers, as set forth in their address, to 
have arisen from the fact that they could not command any money for 
government paper, and therefore they ask first, for money. (1) 



states, and not of ofScers, individually, ia those lines, to accept or refuse the same ; 
and provided, also, that their election shall be signified to Congress, through the Com- 
raander-inwchief, from the lines under his immediate command, within two months, and 
though the commanding officer of the Southern army, from those under his command, 
within six months from the date oi this resolution. 

3. The same commutation shall extend to the corps not belonging to the lines of par- 
ticular States, and who are entitled to half pay for life, as aforesaid ; the acceptance or 
refusal to be determined by corps, and to be signified in the m inner, and within the 
same time, as above mentioned. 

4. That all officers belonging to the hospital department, who are entitled to half pay 
by the resolution of the 17th day of January, 1781, may collectively agree to accept or 
refuse the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same through the commander -in chief, 
within six months from this time; that such officers as have retired at different periods, 
entitled to palf pay lor life, may, collectively, in each State of whicii they are inhabi- 
tants, accept or refu-e the same; their acceptance or refusal to be signified by agents 
authorized for that purpose, within six months from this period; that, with res- 
pect to such retiring officers, the commutation, if accepted by them, shall be in lieu 
of whatever may be t ow due to them since the time of their retiring from service, as 
well as of what might hereafter become due; and that so soon as their acceptance shall 
be signified, the superintendent of finance be and he is hereby directed to take meas. 
ures for the settlement of their accounts accordingly, and to issue to them certificates, 
bearing interest at six percent.; that ail officers entitled to half pay for life, not inclu- 
ded in the preceding resolution, may also collectively agree to accept or refuse the 
aforesaid commutation, signifying the same within si.x months from this lime. 

(1) [PAPER NO. VII.] 

To the United States in Congress assembled: 

The address and petition of the officers of the army of the United States humbly 
sheweth, That we the officers of the army of the U. States, in behalf of ourselves and 
our brethren, the soldiers, beg leave, with all proper deference and respect, freely to 
state to Congress, the supreme power of the United States, the great distress under 
whicli we labor. 

At tliis period of the w-ar, it is with peculiar pain v/c find ourselves constrained 
to address your august body, on matters of a pecuniary nature. We have strug- 
gled with our difficulties year after year, under the hopes that each would be the 
last ; but we have been sadly disappointed. We find our embarrassments thicken 
so fast, and have become so complex, that many of us are unable to go further. In 
this exigence we ;ipply to Congress for relief, as our hcnd and sovereign. 

To prove that our hardships are exceedingly disproportionate to those of any other 
citizens of America, let a 7"ecurrence be had to the paymaster's accounts, for four 
years past. If to this it should be objected, that the respective Slates have made 
settlements and given security for the pay due, for part of that time, let the present 
Talue of those nominal obligations be ascertained by the nionied jnen, and they will 



What did tlic committee of Congress propose in answer to this 
memorial of the 14 officers? (for it will be seen that the names of 14 
officers only arc attached to the memorial.) To this act of the com- 
mittee of Congress I wish to call thej)?^rticula^-, attention p^,the. (yourt- 

be found to be worth little indeed; and yet, trifling as they are, many have been 
under the sad necessity of parting with them, to prevent their families from actually 
starving. 

We complain that shadows have been offered to us, while the substance has been 
gleaned by others. 

Our situation compels us to search for the cause of our extreme poverty. The 
citizens murmur at the grcatne.ss of their taxes, and^re astonished that no part 
reaches the army. The numer.;us demands, which are between the first collectors 
and the soldiers, swallow up the whole. 

Our distresses are now brought to a point. We have borne all that men can bear — 
our property is expendedT— our private resoiirces are at aa end — and our friends are 
wearied out and d'sgusted with our incessant applications. We therefore most se- 
riously and earnestly beg, that a supply of money be forwarded to the army as soon 
as possible. The uneasiness of the soldiers, for want of pay, is great and dan- 
geroug ; any fui cher experiments on their patience, may have fatal effects. 

The promised subsistence or ration of provisions, consisted of certain articles 
specified in kind and quantity. This ration, without regard, that we can 
conceive, to the health of the troops, has been frequently altered, as necessity 
or conveniencj'^ suggested, generally losing by the change some part of its sub- 
stance. On an average, not more than seven or eight tenths have been issued ; the 
retained parts were, for a short tim i paid for ; but the business became trouble- 
some to those who were to execute it. For this, or some other reasons, all regard to 
the dues, as they respected the soldiers, has .been discontinued (now and then a 
trifling gratuity excepted). As these dues respected the officers, they were compen- 
sated during one year and part of another, by an extra ration ; as to the retained 
rations, the account for several years remains unsettled ; there is a large balance 
due upon it, and a considerable sum for that of forage. 

The clothing was another part of the soldier's liire. The arrearages on that 
score, for the year 1777, were paid off in continental money, when the dollar was 
worth about four pence ; the arrearages for the following years, are unliquidated, 
and we apprehend scarcel)^ thought of, but by the army. Whenever there has been 
a real want of means, any defect in system, or neglect in execution, in the depart- 
ments of the army, we have invariably been the sufferers, by hunger and naked- 
ness, and by languishing in an hospital. 

We beg leave to urge an immediate adjustment of all dues ; that, as great a part 
as possible be paid, and the remainder be put on such a footing as will restore cheer- 
fulness to the army, revive confidence in the justice and generosity of its constitu- 
ents, and contribute to the very desirable effect of re-establishing public credit. 

We are grieved to find, that our brethren, who retired from service on half pa}', 
under th« resolution of Congress in 1780, are not only destitute of any effectual 
provision, but are become the objects of obloquy. Their condition has a very dis- 
couraging aspect on us, who must sooner or later retire, and from every considera- 
tion of justice, gratitude and policy, demands attention and redress. 

We regard the act of Congress respecting half-pay, as an honorable and just recom- 
pense for several years' hard service, in which the health and fortunes of the officers 
have been worn down and exhausted. We see with chagrin the odious point of view, 
in which too many of the citizens of the States endeavor to place the men entitled to it. 
We hope, for the honor of human nature, that there are none so hardened in the sin 
of ingratitude, as to deny the justice of the reward. We have reason to believe, 
that the objection generally is against the mode only. To prevent, therefore, any 
altercations and distinctions, which may tend to injure that harmony which we ar- 
dently desire may reign, throughout the community, we are willing to commute the 
half pay pledged, for full pay, for a certain number of years, or for a sura in gross. 



Also to the language of the memorial, in which, with other things, 
they say, "We are grieved to find that our brethren who retired from 
service on half pay under the resolution of Congress in 1780, are not 
only destitute of any effectual provision, 'but are become the objects 
of obloquy. 

"We regard the act of Congress respecting half pay, as an honorable 
and .lust recompense for several years hard service, in which the health 
and fortunes of the officers hare be worn down and exhausted. We 
see with chagrin the odious point of view in whicli the citizens of too 
many of the States endeavor to place the men entitled to it." 

'•We hope, for the honor of human nature, that there are none so 
hardened in the sin of ingratitude, as to deny the justice of theter 
ward." iiO 

This address was dated in December 1782, (vol. 4 Jour, of Cdni, 
p. 107,208.) 

' .,' REPORT OF GRAND COMMITTEE. 

'In Congress, Saturday *le6.'25, 1783, Vol. 4, p. 152-3. ♦ 

The Grand Committee consisting of a member from each State. 
Report.- -That they have considered the contents of a memorial 
presented l)y the army, and find that they comprehend five different 
articles: 

1st. Present pay. 2nd. Settlement of accounts for arrears of 
pay and security for what is due. 

as shall be agreed to by the committee sent with this address. And in this we pray, 
that the disabled officers and soldiers, with the widows and orphans of those who 
have expended, or may expend their lives in the service of their country, may be 
fully comprehended. We also beg, that some mode may be pointed out for the 
eventual payment of those soldiers, who are the subjects of the resolution of Con- 
gress, of the 15th May, 1778. 

To the representation now made, the army have not a doubt that Congress will 
pay all that attention which the serious nature of it requires. It would be criminal 
\n the officers to conceal the general dissatisfaction which prevails, and is gaining 
ground in the army, from the pressure of evils and injuries, which, in the course of 
seven long years, have made their condition, in man}' instances, wretched. They 
therefore entreat, that Congress, to convince the army and the world, that the inde- 
pendence of America shall not be placed on the ruin of any particular class of her 
citizens, will point out a mode for immediate redress. 
H. KNOX, M. General, ] 

JOHN PATTERSON, B. General, | 

J. CREATON, Colonel, ^-On the part of the Massachusetts line. 

JOHN CRANE, Colonel, | 

H. MAXWELL, Lieut. Colonel, j 
J. HUNTINGTON, B. General, ) 

H. SWIFT, Colonel. [ n iU ^ ^ e ,u n r ,y 

SAMUEL B. WEBB. Colonel, ^^ ^^^ J**"^ «f ^^^ Connecticut line. 

E. HUNTINGTON, Lt. Colonel, ) 

P. CORTLANDT. Colonel. On the part of the New York line. 

JOHN N. CUMMINGS, Lt. Col., On the part of the New Jersey line. 
WILLIAM SCOTT, Major, On the part of the New Ilampshire line. 

W. EUSTIS. Hospital Surgeon, On the part of the general hospital. 

MOSES HAZEN, Brigadier General. . '.rshsjq ▼«- 

Cantonments, Hudson's River, December,! 782. 



9 

3d. A commutation of the half pay allowed by the different reso- 
lutions of Congress for an equivalent in gross. 

4t]i. A settlement of the accounts of the deficiencies of rations and 
compensation. 

5th. A settlement of the accounts of deficiencies of clothing and 
compensation, Whereupon, 

Resolved. As to the first,, that the superintendent of finance be di- 
rected, conformable to the measures already taken for that purpose, 
as soon as the state of the pu1)lic finances will permit, to make such 
payment and in such manner as ho shall think proper until the further 
order of Congress 

Resolved, With respect to the 2d article, so far as relates to the 
^settlement of accounts, that the several States be called upon to com- 
plete, without delay,thc settlement with their respective lines of the 
army, up to the firs^t day in August 1780,' and that the superintendent 
of finance be directed to take sucli measures as shall appear to him 
most proper for eftccting the settlement from that period." The 1st 
day of August was changed to 31st of December. Passed. 

Asto what relates to the providing security for what shall be 
;duo on settlement: Resolved, That the troops of the United States 
*in common with all the creditors of the same, have an undoubted 
right to expect, and that Congress will make every effort in their 
power to obtain from the respective States sul)stantial funds, adequate 
to the object of funding the whole debt of the United States, and 
will enter upon an immediate and full consideration of the nature of 
such funds, and the most likely mode of obtaining them. 

"Ordered, That the remainder of the report be referred to a com- 
mittee of five. Ordered, that it be an order of the day for Monday 
next, to take into consideration the means of obtaining from the sev- 
eral States substantial funds, for funding the whole debt of the Uni- 
ted States." On Monday, January 27, Congress proceeded on the 
order of the day, but came to no resolution thereon. 

It will be seen here is pointed out the anticipated manner and way 
in which these debts were to be paid or secured. 

What was the answer of these officers to this action of Congress ? 
On the 15th of March, 1783, seven days only previous to the pas- 
sage of this act, after hearing a most patriotic and thrilling address 
of Gen. Washington— he having retired tliese officers: . Resolved, 
That the unanimous thanks of the officers of the army be presented to 
his excellency, the Commander-in-chief, for his excellent address, and 
the communication he has been pleased to make them, and that he be 
assured that the officers reciprocate his affectionate expressions with 
the greatest sincercity of which the human mind can be capable." 

The address from the army to Congress— the report of the com- 
mittee from the army, and the resolutions of Congress of the 25th of 
January, 1783, being read — 

Riso'lved unanimously, "That the army continue to have an un- 
shaken confidence in the justice of Congress and their country, and 



10 

are fully convinced that the representatives of America will not dis- 
band or disperse the army until their accounts are liquidated, the bal- 
ance accurately ascertained, and adequate funds established for pay- 
ment, and in this arranorement tlie officers expect that the half-paj 
or commutation of it, sliould be ellicaciously comprehended. 

Resolved unanimously , "That, <fcc., &c., that the proceedings of this 
day be transmitted by the President to Maj. McDougal, and that he be 
requested to continue his solicitations at Congress until the oljject of 
his mission had been accomplislicd. liORATIO GATES, 

PresidentJ^ 

Thus we find the proposition of Congress' submitted to these offi- 
cers, in which they are given to understand in the most positive terms, 
that the securities are to consist of substantial funds of the several 
States, by which all the debts" of the creditors of the United States 
were to be settled, and there cannotbe a doubt that the assent of any, 
or a majority of the lines of the army if ever they gave their assent 
to this five 3'ears' full pay proposition, it must have been with refer- 
ence to the fulfilment of the terms of security promised in this act of 
Jan. 25, 1783, which utterly and entirely failed, and proves most 
conclusively that none of the officers could by any possibility of con- 
struction have understood the words "money or securities on interest 
at six per cent, per annum," to have referred simpl}^ to the renewed 
acknowledgement of the half pay debt, by giving and charging the 
officer with a certificate of the government to that effect, without ex- 
pressing any time in which the same should be payable, or how the 
same was to be secured, and expressly at the same time, prohibiting the 
officers, individually, the right of option to receive their certificate 
of service and their right to half pay for life. 

The additional words, "said securities" to be such as shall be giv- 
en to other creditors of the United States, does not in the least di- 
minish the force of the promise of money or securities. The half 
pay contract being payable in specie or other current money equiva- 
lent, when made by the government, admits that its own paper is not 
specie or security, more especially while the acts of Congress scaling 
and fixing a value on its own securities or certificates of two and a 
half dollars to the hundred, are in full force. (1) But this act'of 
January 25th expressly declares tliat all other creditors are to be se- 



(1.) It will be remembered tbat'this contract was made after the Government had 
become utterly insolvent, and h;id on the ISth of April, 1780, pissi^d a resolution "that 
the principil of all certificites taken out since the 18ih of March, 1780, should be dis- 
charged at the rate of one Spinish milled dollar, or the current exchange thereof in other 
money at the time of payment, for forty dollars of the said bills of credit secured on 
loan; and that the principle of all certificates that should thereafter be taken out, until 
the further order of Congress, be discharged at the same rate and in the same manner 
as those that had been taken out since the 18th of March, 1780." 

Here, then, was the public declaration of the utter insolveucy of the Government, as 
early as the 18th of March, 1780. 

By this act two several and distinct classes of currency were created and continued 
during all the period of the old confederation. Contracts were payable in specie. — 
Keeping in view this fact, it will clearly be seen that all Government certificates had 
long previous to 1783 ceased to be security. 



11 

cured by substantial funds of the States. But it will be seen that 
Congress did not wait the time given for the acceptance or rejection 
of the five years' full pay act, but on the 4th day of July, 1783, pass- 
ed a resolve by which it will be seen that all the rights of the officers 
were committed for settlement to the entire control and decision of 
the Paymaster-General. 

These half-pay debts were not attempted to be settled in pursuance 
cf the act of March 22, but of July 4, 1783, which, by legal construc- 
tion, took away the effect of March *22. (1) 

This law made nq reference to the five years' full pay, or that it 
should be payable in "specie or securities ;" or if in securities when 
payable, made no reservation of the right of option to the officer to 
accept or refuse the five years' full pay. The Paymaster-General 
could by this law only give certificates of the sums which should ap- 
pear due on such settlements. The Paymaster-General by this act 
had full power to settle all accounts and demands any of the claim- 
ants had against the U. States, and he chose to credit the officers 
with five years' full pay, together with the balance which was due for 
arrears of pay — and these certificates issued, and all that was done 
was so done by his positive command and of this law, and as will be 
seen by the letter of the Secretary of Finance in his reply touch ng 
one of these half-pay cases. (2) 

The act of July 4, 1783, (Journal, 4 vol., 237,) is full and explicit (3) 



(1) "It is our duty," says Chief Justice Parsons, "to consider other statutes made in 
pari materia, whether repealed or unrepoaled."'— (Church vs. Crocker, 3 Massachusetts 
Repcrts, 17-21.) "For statutes," says Chief Justice Parker, "are not to be taken ac- 
cording to their very words, but the provisions may be extended beyond, or restrained 
within the words, according to the sense and meaning of the legislature apparent from 
the whole of the statute, or from other statutes enacted before and after the one in ques- 
tion. The general system of legislation may be taken into view to aid the construction 
of any one statute relating to the same subject." — (Holbrook vs. Hoibrook, 1 Pick. 
248,284.) For it is to be assumed tliat a series of statutes relating to one subject wag 
intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions.— (Dwarris 
on Statutes, p. 869.) 

(2) Office of Finance, 17 February, 1784. 
"Sir : I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the first instant. I should be 

very glad to give such opinion on the subject as might be agreeable to your wishes, but 
I am not authorized to give my opinion at all on the subject, because the adjustment of 
these accounts rest with the Paymaster alone, by the special act of Congress. If I were 
to express a private opinion, it would n,ot have (or at least it ought not to have) any in- 
fluence. If the Paymaster rej'ct any claim made on him, the claimant can only have 
redress by application to Congress. But I should suppose that if it should be a doubt- 
ful case he will report it as such for their opinion. It on the contrary his opinion be de- 
cidcdlv against you, I doubt much the success of an application to them. However you 
will on this occasion judge for yourself, and any service which I may consistently ren.. 
der you may confidently rely on. ^ 

1 am, with esteem and respect, sir. 
Your most obedient servant. 
Col. Henry B. Livingstov. Signed, Robert Morris." 

(3) Resolved, "That the Paymaster-General, and he is hereby fully authorized and 
pmpowered to settle and finally adjust all accounts whatsoever between the U. States 
and the oflicers and soldiers of the American army, so as to include all and every de- 
mand which they or either of them may have by vinuc of the several resolu'ions and 
acts of Congress relating thereto, and that the s.iid Paymaster do give certificates (not 
money or securities) of the sums which may appear due on- settle mfiuts in the form and 

:<ji]3£ ^iJtii ck 



12 

when once charged and sent to the of3&cer, these certificates could not 
be returned. (1) 

The Secretary of Finance not only says that the settlement of all 
these claims is exclusively under the control of the Paymaster-Gene- 
ral, but he also expresses the opinion that Congress would not inter- 
pose any action in behalf of a creditor where the Paymaster-General 
had decided against him. 

It was in pursuance of this law. and the imperative rules of the P^,y- 
master-General, that these and all other accounts and claims were at- 
tempted to be finally adjusted. The officers w'ere never consulted in 
stating the account between them and the U. States. Neither the 
law nor the rules of the Paymaster-General left any opportunity to 
approve or disapprove of anything which he saw fit to do. Tliere 
was due to the officers generally a large amount for arrears of pay 
which was a sum fixed by law, and then long over due. But the Pay- 
master refused to state, and never did state, the account of one of 
the officers without first crediting him with fire years' full pay and 
charging; him with the certificates to balance the account, and he chose 
to make all these certificates payable in ten years, he had the same 
authority to have made them payable in fifty years. Wliile this act 
made no provision for the return of any of these certificates he con- 
tinued to issue them long after the States had neglected to contribute 
the "substantial funds," promised under the act of January 25, 1783, 
and while they were worth in market less than gth of their nominal 
amount. This he continued to do long after i;ho invalid officers had 
petitioned Congress for leave to return their full pay certificates, and 
Congress, by the act of Sept. 14, 1788, had resolved, "That the in- 
valid officers be permitted to return the amount of their commuta- 
tion in other securities of the U. States, where they have parted with 
their own, provided the same shall be of the same amount and bear- 
ing the same interest." He credited to the officer of the same grade, 
no more to the young than to the old, no more to the officer of thirty 
than to one of seventy years of age ; no more to the young officer 
whose life estate was of the legal value of twenty years, than one of 
five years' full pay. After the interest which amounted to more than 
five hundred dollars then overdue, he issued certificates and charged 

manner which the Superintendent of the Finance of the U. States may direct " (Not 
described to be such as '-should be given to oth r creditors.) Provided alw.j'sthat 
the certificates to the officers shall be dclayi-d for a reasonable time to obtain returns of 
payment or advances to them by the States or public departments where in, the opinion 
of the Paymaster- General, such delay shall be necessary." 

(1.) None but invalid officers permitted to return their commutation certificates. — By 
act of Congress, Sept- 14, 1788, Renolred, '«That invalid oflloers be permitted to return 
the amount ot commutation in other securities of the U. S. where they havepirted 
with their own, provided the same shall be of equal amount and l)earirig the same in- 
terest. But tliis resolve was not extended t'l the other officers, notwithstanding the 
government had failed toh;ive them secured as was promised by act of January 25 1783. 
And therefore as the Secretary declares, and as all history of all subsequent action of 
these creditors, as well as (3<.ngress proves, that it was of no use for them to ask Con. 
gress to interpose thei^? action for relief against the opinion of tho Pajraast«r-General," 



18 

them at their full amount for $2,400, wheu,at that very tiiue, the.a'OA^- 
ernment could have purchased the same amount for $300. Ai> there 
were over twenty officers who were young- or middle aj^ed, to one of 
old, there must have been over twenty-live to one, whose interest it 
must have been opposed to such an arrangement. And inasmuch as 
the Paymaster never allowed a certificate of balf pay to be issued to 
even one officer, it rebuts all possibility of the assent or agreement of 
the officers to receive these certificates as a compromise in final set 
tleraent of the Half Pay Contract. The only question wliicli coukl 
possibly arise, would be what amount ought the officer be cliargcd 
for these depreciated certificates wjiich they could not return, as did 
the invaled officers, having disposed of tliem for tlieir market value, 
say from eight to ten dollars for the hundred, after having waited 
in vain for many years to have them secured by "substantial stocks," 
as promised in the act of January 25, 1783, which was as much a part 
of the act of March 22 and July 4th, 1783, as if they had all been 
embraced in one act. Whose fault was it that this security was not fur- 
nished? Whose fault was it that Congress made no appropriation 
for the payment of the interest whiclrbecainc due annually, wlierebv 
all confidence in these public securities (as they are misnamed) was . 
lost? Why was it that the credit of the old confederation became so 
bad and all of its paper so worthless ? V/hose fault was this ? Who 
promised to pay the half-pay del)t in specie or current money equh'a- 
lent ? Who promised to pay these certificates, the officers or the gov- 
ernment? Is it the law of this Court or of Congi'css that the credi- 
tor and not the debtor is to pay the debt? Were these certificates 
anything more than the evidence of indebtedness until there was an 
appropriation made by Congress for security or payment? The 
facts find that the old confederation expired without having paid 
one cent of interest or principal of these certificates, and that only 
about two-thirds of the amount of principal and interest was ever 
paid to any person by the present U- States. Therefore, Avhilc no 
court or jury can by any principles of law or equity convert the 
charge and delivery of these certificates into even apayment/jro^an/o 
in discharge of this specie-paying ^contract, how can any court, any 
lawyer, the Congress of any civilized nation, by any possible error of 
construction, convert such a disconnected faithless transaction into a 
final settlement or compromise of a solemn contract for more than 
double the amount in value ? Did the American people gain tlioii- 
liberties and establish this rcpulilic at the sacrifice of tlieir honor, the 
entire disregard to justice, and the abrogation of their private rights ? 
When the old confederation neglected to consider them as connected 
with the contract by attempting to^ substitute these certificates in 
place of that obligation, and preserve their credit by the payment of 
the interest annually, they ceased to represent or have any connec- 
tion with tie half-pay contract, they were charged on the books of (he 
government to the officer instating the account in tlic same manner as 
thoso given for arrears of pay. And this was the relation of the 



14 

parties, the statcniont of the accounts of the old confederation with 
the officers when the Union of these U. States was formed and this 
government became the assignee of the public domain, and by the 6th 
article of the constitution assumed the payment of all the debts and' 
engagements of the old confederation. Now of what did these debts 
and engagements consist ? There were the certificates of the gov- 
ernment given for arrears of pay, and those given toward the half-pay 
contract, all or nearly all had changed hands ; few if any were in the 
liands of tlic original payees ; they Iiad parted with them for a small 
sum, •I)ecause the old confederation had failed to fulfil the promise of 
funded security, by the act of Jan. 25, 1783. 

Have these United States any right to select some of these worth- 
less certificates which, because the Paymaster-General assumed the 
authority to charge some of them to the officers as full pay, and by 
the way of contradistinction in stating the account from those given 
for arrears of pay then due. After having assumed the payment of 
all debts and engagements, omitted to make any appropriation for 
their payment or security for 2 years, and thereby lessening public con- 
fidence on the value of those certificates, and even then, at that late 
da}^ refusing to attempt to carry out that full pay proposition of the 
old confederation by paying promptly even to strangers who held 
them, the full amount of those certificates with annual interest.-- In- 
stead of that, utterly repudiated any such an-angcment, refusing by 
all their acts to recognise any connection of these certificates with 
this contract. And yet, nov,' come into their own court after having 
been credited with the full amourit instead of their value, and ask 
tiiat these particular certificates may extend to the half pay con- 
tract, and that this court may so construe the attempt to secure 
the promise to pay, as a full performance of all the promises 
expressed as well as clearly implied by the old confederacy, 
and that tliese certificates given for arrears of pay were rightful- 
ly sacrificed to the officers, and that those charged as intended to 
apply to full pay, should be considered as a compromise and full dis- 
charge of all sums which acci'ued after deducting the ten years half- 
pay. This is done after the government admits that the act of March 
22d, 1783, was not intended to repeal, and did not repeal the act of 
Oct. 21, 1780. Now take this admission and tlien read the special 
provision of tlie 9th section of the funding act of August 4, 1790, as 
follows: "That nothing in this act contained sliall l)e construed in 
anywise to alter, abridge, or impair the rights of those creditors of 
the United States who shall not subscribe to the said loan, or the 
contracts upon which their respective claims are founded, but the 
contracts and rights shall remain in full force and virtue." There 
can bonothing left in defence. T]?o officers did not fund these securities, 
and strangers holding this evidence of indebtedness, could not have 
acipiirod thereby any interest on any other claims of the payees, 
against the old confederation or the new. The holders of these cer- 
tificates could not make the officers subscribers to the funding loan. 



15 

and tliey never did subscribe, and if they had, it would not liave af- 
fected their legal rights under the contract. Because, as 1 have before 
statedj all these certificates were clmi-gcd and delivered to the officers 
in pursuance of a positive law of Congress. 

Wc have seen that the officers had no option to refuse the certili 
cates or to surrender them to the Government. 

The act of 1783 contained no provision for their return. They 
were sent to tlie officers by order of law, and they were neither spe- 
cie or securities; and as late as September 14, 1788, the last year of 
the old Confederation, a special act was passed authorizing the inva- 
lid corps "to return the amount of their commutation in other secu- 
rities of the United States, where they have parted with their own, 
provided the same shall be of the same amount. 

This is placed beyond a possibility of doubt 1st. Because no one 
officer was permitted, oi* ever did receive his certificate for half-pay, 
nor was the same ever paid to any officer until tliis court decided and 
Congress affirmed it in the case of Dr. Baird. It was specially 
demanded and refused in the case of Col. McLane. State papers, 
vol. 1, page 45G. That the officers never gave their individual as- 
sent to the passage of the law appears from the debates in Congress, 
(I) and the opinion of those who voted for the law (2) after the law 
liad passed Congress, whether with or without their consent, it was 
impe: ative on all. 

I need not detain the court to provo that the decision of this court in the case 
of Dr. Baird confirmed ?.nd removed these half pay debts beyond all controversy. 1st. 



(1.) Mr. Smith, of Maryland, contended that none of the Maryland line ever ex.. 
pressed their consent to the act of 1785. "Tiiey, therefore, could never in lact, have 
come under the provisions of the commutation law. It was true, that when they came 
home from service they found that the law had passed and that thoj' must take the com- 
nuitation or nothing;-. The alternative was to take it or starve, and it was not unnatural 
to sui)pose that they chose the former. This was the cise with the whole Maryland 
line. — (Debates in Congress, 1827-28, vol. i, part 1.) 

(2.) "Mr. Madison who was in Congress in 1783, and voted "aye" on the passajje of 
thw commutation Resolution, says in the course of the debate relorred to in 1790, 
was this depreciated papcy (commutation certificates) fieely accepted? No. The 
Government offered that or nothing. The relation of the individual to the Government 
and the circumstancos of the otter, rendered the acceptance, a forced one, not a free 
one. The same degree of constraint would vitiate a transaction between man and man 
belbre any court of equity on the face of the earth." **«««» 
Here, then, is a debt acknowledged to have been due, and which was never discharged ; 
because the payment was forced and defective." See Annals of Congress, vol. 1, pp 
1236, 1308. 

'•Col. Hartley who was an officer in the late army, says also, that these certificates 
were not accepted by tiic soldiers willingiy as an equivalent lor their services, but Con- 
gress forced them to except of them as the only alternative." lb. p. 1209. 

Mr. Tucker says — from our inability to piy, we were obliged to force on them cer- 
tificates with a promise to piy them an annual interest thereon, &c. * * lb. p. 1222. 

"Mr. Scott. If these paper certificates are evidences uf anything, it is of a pre-ex- 
isting contract broken. * * * * ** *» 

And since it was not in the power of interested individuals to compel Congress to com- 
pliance, that the contract was compleiely annihilated, and Congress was reduced 
to the necessity of offering some consideration in lieu thereof. What did they offer .' 
Paper of the nominal value of twenty shillings, but of no more real valuelhen two shil- 
lings and sixpence." * * '' lb. p. 1317. 

"Mr. Seney's views." . * ♦ , lb. vol. ii., p. 1324, 531. 



16 

Because the Constitution of the United States was ordained to establish justice. 2d. 
Article 1 provides that "all legislative power shall be vested in Congress of the United 
States, who shall have power to l-iy, levy and collect tuxes, &c. to pay the debts, to 
borrdw money on the cred t of the United States, to constitute tribunals inferior to 
the Supreme Court." The second section of the 4d article provides "that the judicial 
power of the United States shall he vi sted on one Supreme Court, and such inferior 
coiiits as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, that the judicial pow- 
er shall extend to nil cases in law and e(]uity arising under this constitution, the laws 
of the United States and treaties or which shall be made under their authority, to con- 
troversies to which the United States shall be a party." 

The Court of claims is invested by the terms of the act, with a more enlarged juris- 
diction than any other courts of the United States. They are "to hear and deternaine 
all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any reinlation of an Executive 
Dejiartnient, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the 
United States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed therein, and also all 
claims which may bo referred to said Court by either House of Congress." 

It is a judicial court with all the requisitions and elements of such a court. Their 
power to deteiauine is coextensive with the power which conferred it. Congress may 
refuse to make an appropriation to meet the award, it will be none the less the jndg.. 
mcnt and exclusively a judicial act Congress cannot assign as a reason the want of 
jurisdiction in the adjudication and determination of claims against the United States 
by a court of their own creation — by tlie authority of 'he constitution, which was or- 
dained to establish justice, which is defined to be "the virtue by which we give to any 
man what is his due," whether it be by contract, express or implied, "right," the as- 
sertion of right; one deputed bv the King to do right by the way of judgment. This 
exposition is fully sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Martin heir 
at l:.w of Fairfax, vs. Ilunterns, Les-ee — Wl.eaton, 304; 4 do., 310; 9 do., 1: 11 Peters, 
257; 7 do , 243; 3 Cond , Rep, 575; 5 Wheatcn, 153; do , 344. 

There is no rule of law more clearly settled or sustained by higher 
authorities than that. 

An allowance of a portion of a debt as the balance due, and the 
reception l)y the creditor, is no l)ar or compromise of the claim. 

The principle of compromise, by the payment of a less sum, always 
presumes — 

1. That it is made- free from compulsion. 

2. Tliat there has been no concealment or misrepresentation by the 
debtor of his pecuniary condition. 

3. Tiiat at the time of the receipt of a less sum as a compromise, it 
must also be presumed that the creditor has the opportunity of en- 
forcino- his claim by a court of law. 

4. The creditors of the govcrumet are never consulted in the al- 
lowance made, nor is tiie reception by the creditor of the amount al- 
lowed by the officer of the government, to imply his consent to its 
correctness, or any admission tiiat he intends tliereby to release the 
balance of the claim. (1.) Tliis the claimants "consider an important 
]ioint, and demands the special consideration and decision of this court. 



(1.) In the case of the U. Statest)*. Dickson, 15 Peters, page 162, "the Supreme Court 
of the U. S. s ly that the constructio-i given to the laws by any department of the cx- 
ecuive government, is necessary exparte, without the benefit of an opposing argument 
in a suit where the very matter is in controversy, and wfceu the consirjction is once 
given, there is no opportunity to question or revise it by those who are most interested 
in it as officers, desiring their salary and emo'umcnts therefrom, for they cannot bring 
the test by a judicial decision." It is only when they are sued by the government for 
some supposed iialance that th<'y can assert their rights. 

As Attorney-General Cushing says in the case of i5owman : 

"When an act of Congress commands a head of department to do a particular thing, 



17 

The act of July 4, 1783, and that of March 22, 1783, were not pass- 
ed at the request of the officers, nor of the creditors generally of 
the United States, but were the results of the utter insolvency and 
imperative necessities of tlie old confederation, wliich left no other 
course than to pass a general law instructing the Paymaster-General 
to state and adjust all accounts and demands against the government, 
without particularly referring to half-pay or arrears pay of the offi- 
cers. He was to adjuKt all by issuing certificates- the act not spec- 
ifying any time in which they were to be made payable. He took it 



and thb thing to be done is ministerial in its nature, as, to pay so much money to A. 
B., then the head of the department is bound in law to do the thing, and may be com- 
pelled by mandamus of the Circuit Court — (Kendall vs. United States, 12 Peters, 610.) 

The same doctrine applies to a joint resolution, properly enacted, which differs trom 
an act of Congress only in form* 

But, if the tenor of the law be not mandatory of a mere ministerial act to be done, 
then the head of department acts according to his discretion, in subordination always to 
his constitutional and legal relation to the President of the United States. — {Decatur vs. 
Paulding, 14 Peters, 497.) 

It may happen that a claim shall arise, which, according to the plain terms of the 
law, is not within its provisions, or which is not proved by the evidence which the law 
prescribes, and so is rejected by the Secretary. In such a case the claimant may apply 
to Congress, and that body may pass a private law for the relief of the party, dispensing 
with its own conditions of applicability, or its prescribed rules of evidence. But no 
such dispensing power resides in the Secretary. 

Or the Secretary, in the exercise of lawful discretion in construing such a general 
act of Congress, may adopt a construction of it which is deemed erroneous by the two 
Houses of Congress. In tliat case, th&y will pass a declaratory act, which, being ap- 
proved by the President, or repassed after his refusal to approve it, constitutes a new 
law for the government of the Secretary." 

Subjoined is the decision of the Attorney-General in the case of H. L. Gallaher, who 
had a contract with the United States for doing certain work on the Washington 
aqueduct : 

Attorney Genepal's Office, Sept. 5, 1857. 

Sir : II. L. Gallaher had a contract with the United States for doing certain worlc on 
the Washington aqueduct, lie was to be paid by the cubic yard, and the government 
reserved the right of suspending the work under the contract at any time. The engi- 
neer in charge gave him notice to suspend in July, 1856, the appropriation being ex- 
hausted, and the contractor was paid for what had been done up to that time. In March, 
1858, he was notified to resume his work, and did so. He now says he is doing the 
work at a los«, and asks you, in a memorial, either to give him a larger compensation 
than he bargained for, or else to release him from the contract. 

You have no authority to do either uf these things. You cannot ab'^olve him from 
his obligation to do the work, and if be does it you cannot authorize him to be paid for 
it at a higher price than tlie eoutract sti[iulatfs for. This is true, whether he was bound 
in law to resume after the su.spejsiv')n or not. If he wis so bound, it is your duty not 
to release him ; and if he is aiready released bv the suspension, he does not need your 
interference. Qua cunque via data, the result is the same ; bo is askint; for that which 
cannot be given. In .short, you have no power to relieve him from the hardship he 
complains of, either by giving him damages, by releasing him from his present contract, 
or by making a new one. 

This is a practical answer to the whole case. "What the effect of the suspension may 
be upon the rights of the coutractor and his sureties is not a question for you, and con- 
sequently not for me, to decide at present. The courts will settle it in due time, if it 
becomes necessary to raise it. In the meanwhile, if the contractor quits his work or 
otherwise violates the covenant he has made with the Government, he must do so at his 
own peril and tliat of his sureties. I am, with great respect, yours, &c., 

Hon. J. B. Floyd, Secretary of War. J. S. BLACK. 

It was settled to be no bar even where Congress, in the act allowing it, declared it to 
be for the halt-pay for life— Case of Thos. H. Baird. 



18 

upon himseir to make them payablo in ten years Avitli interest annu- 
ally. History finds that it was utterly iniposssble for the govern- 
ment to liave paid the dehts wiiich were then due, or even the inter- 
est. Not only so, but another important fact that Congress on the 
25th of July, 1783 passed a vote refusing to allow the several States 
each to assume the payment and security of the commutation of their 
several lines, and deduct the amount from their quotas of tax, &e. — 
The great exigency of the government required that ihe debts should 
be postponed, and no one seems to have seen more clearly, and appre- 
ciated that necessity more tliaii [laymaster Pierce, who never allowed 
the account' of one of these creditors to be stated without charging 
enough of th-ese certificates to balance it, and we shall all, Avhile we 
must ever regret the injury to the creditors of the government, who suf- 
fered by its insolvency, yet v/c shall ever rejoice that it was to this 
poverty which caused the change of securi-ties until they reached the 
hands of those who could see clearly tlvat tlio redemption of these cer- 
tiificatcs could only be hoped for in no other way than through a union 
of these United States. 

Having shown that those certificates were issued in pursuance of 
the imperative law of July 4, 1783, and not of March 22, 1783, for the 
beneiit of the goverrimeht and not to benefit the officers. 

2d. That the Paymaster- General assumed the right by virtue of this 
law, to state the account of all the creditors as he thought proper, 
that he could not and did not state account of any officer without 
crediting him with five years full pay, and charging him with these 
depreciated certificates, and did not give any officer the right of op- 
tion to accept or refuse them. 

3d. That the 'old confederation expired without having paid one 
cent of principal or interest, altliouglfthe interest was due at the 
end of each year on the amount due on the certificates given for ar- 
rears of pay as well as all other certificates. 

I now propose to show in' what way these as well as all the other certifi- 
cates were finally disposed of — the loss which the holders of these certificates 
sustained. 

One of the great purposes for which our Constitution was ordained is de- 
clared to be, to establish justice, &c., and for that purpose established three 
great departments of governu>ent — the legislative, the executive and the judi- 
cial. The first to pass laws, the second to approve and execute, the third 
to expound and enforce them. — Martiu heir at law of Fairfax, Hunter's Les- 
see, 1 Wheaton, 153. 

One of the first great principal measures of this government was that of 
the funding law by which all the paper of the government was funded, and 
the certificates which were issued to the officers of the army, and the loss on 
them under the act of August 4, 1790, may be seen from the Kegistor Certifi- 
cate and the speech of Mr. Tucker. 

Loss ON THE Certificates. 
"The records in the Register's olhce will show that Mr. Tucker is right in 
his figures, and as the principal of settling or redeeming these certificate 
under the funding act : 



19 

"Mr. Tucker, of N.J. It is usccrtaiucd, Mr. Chtuniian, that each cap- 
tain, for his five years full pay, received a certificate for $i2,400, bearing in- 
terestat six per cent, payable annually, andsucb a certificate Liaptain Dcerhart 
received in lieu of his half-pay for hi'r., which ran eight years without pay- 
ment of interest, as before stated, viz : from the 1st of January, 178;j, to the 
1st of January, 1791, the interest amounting on the latter day to $1,152; ma- 
king in the aggregate ^3,552. It well be recollected that in 3Iarch, 1788 
the present irovernmcnt went into operation, and in the year 1790 made 
provision for and funded the public debt. 

"Well, sir, how did they provide for th^ payment of Captain Deerhart's 
$2,400 principal, and $1,152 intaaest, due oq the Ist of Jan-ary l';91 T— 
Why, sir, they gave him three certificates. One for $1,600, being two- 
thirds his principal, with interest at six per cent., "and one for $800, the oth- 
er third of his debt, but deferred ten years Vvithout interest, and, instead of 
paying his $1,152 down, or giving him paper at six per cent., they gave him 
a certificate for his $1,152 interest, and redeemable at the pleasure of the 
United States, at three per cent. Let us now examine how this funding sys- 
tem operated. 

"1. Loss of interest on $800, deferred from the 1st of January, 

1791 to 1st January, 1801, (ten years) at six per cent. $480.00 

2. Interest on the above sum from the 1st January, 1801, to the 

1st January, 1828, Ctwcnty-sevca years,) at six per cent 777.60 

"3. Loss on interest on the $1,152 of the three per cent., from 
1st January, 1791, to 1st January, 1828, (thirty-seven 
years.) at three per cent 1,278.72 

"Total loss on Captain Dehart's, down to this $2,536.32 

"And, in the same proportion, every ofiicer's pay or commutation according 
tohisraok."— Ib.,p. 1,599. 

So much, and only so nnicli, ^vas ever paid to the bearer of these 
certificates, or counterfeits of the same, for one was quite as numer- 
ous as the otlicr, (the !i-overnraent having negdccted to guard against it, 
by issuing them on paper in wliich the style of execution and design 
Avas hardly equal to a school child's reward of merit,) and this sum 
was only payable in instalments, requiring some thirty years longer 
to extinguisli ; but if it was paid to a person who purchased them for 
seven cents on the dollar, or was found in the street, it may have been 
considered as liberal between tlie bearer (and not the payee of the 
certificates) and the U. S. But the language of the act is that the of- 
ficer shall be entitled to receive the amount. How to receive? By 
whom paid and when paid ? It is a well settled law that where no 
time is specified in which the smu is to be paid, it is payable imme- 
diately, or within a reasonable time. Here we have the law of the 
United States [not the statement or deductions of Counsel] by which- 
certain certificates which were charged on account stated between 
the old Confederation and the officers, who were entitled by contract 
to half pay for lite, were finally disposed of by those who held them, 
eight years after they were i.^sued, and charged to the officers. 
These facts are not controvertc 1. It will l)e seen, therefore, that 
these certificates were never paid to any person, but were funded un- 



der the Act of August 4, 1790, and cveii tlieii, only about two-thirds 
of the amount Avas over j>aid, aiid the act declares that so much can 
be done only by voluntary loan on their part." The Government actu- 
ally borrowed these ceiiificates on which to make a loan, to set \\p in 
l)usiness, and these constituted the only real capital it possessed. 
The debtor actually borrowed the money from his creditor to pay this 
much of the debt, and Avas the cause of our great commercial ad- 
vancement. 

But as there appears to be some diversity of opinion in the con- 
struction of this law ( ) I have annexed a copy, (1) by which it 

will be seen that it only embraced certificates (2) and bills of credit. 



(1) Funding Jet of Jlugust'4, 17d0. 

The first section of the act reserves out of the proceeds of the revenue from 
customs, &c., $600,000 a year for the supp'irt of GoS'ernment, and appropriates the resi- 
due for thepajhient of interest on debts and loans. The act then proceeds thus : 

" And as new loans are and will be necessary for the payment of the aforesaid arrears 
of interest and the instalments of the principal of said foreign debt, due and growing 
due, and may also be found expedient in effecting an ent're alteration in the state of 
the same. 

Wherefore the second section authorizes the President to cause §12,000,000 to be 
borrowed, part to pay arrears and instalments of the foreign debt, and to make other 
contracts relating to the foreign debt. The act then proceeds in relation to the domes- 
tic debt thus : 

" And whereas it is desirable to adapt the nature of the provision to be made for the 
domestic debt to the present circumstances of the United States, as far as it shall be 
found practicable, consistent with ffood faith and the riglits of the creditors, which 
can only be done by a voluntar}' loan on their part. 

The third section then authorizes a loan to be proposed to the fuU amount of the "do- 
mestic debt," by opening books for receiving subscriptions, by a commissioner of loans, 
to be appointed in each of the States; and that the sums which shall be subscribed 
thereto be payable in "certificates," issued for the said debt according to their specie 
value ; which said certificates are designated and described as follows : 

The fourth section desionates and describes the three new certificates which the sub. 
scribers to the said loans shall be entitled to receive — upon all certificates bearing inter- 
est the same as to be received up to the last day of December, 1700. 

That for the whole or any part of any sum subscribed to tiie said loan, by any per- 
son or persons, or body politic, which shall be paid in the princifial of the said domes- 
tic debt, the subscriber or subscribers shall be entitled to a certificate, purporting that 
the United States owe to the holder or holders thereof, his, her or their assigns, a sum 
to be expressed therein, equal to two-thirds ot the sum so paid, bearing an interest of 
six per centum per annum, payable quarter yearly, and subject to redemption by pay- 
ments not exceeding in one year in amount of principal and interest the proportion of 
eight dollars of a hundred of the sum mentioned in s:iid certificate. A second certiH« 
cate for one-third, payable as aforesaid, bearing interest after 1800. A third certificate 
for the amount of the interest, bearing an interest at three per centum per annum, pay- 
able quarter yearly ; provided it shall not bo understood that the United States shall 
be bound or obliged to redeem in the proportion aforesaid ; but it shall be understood 
only that they have a right to do so. 

(2) Description of certificates receivable for sums subscribed. 

" 1. The 'certificates' issued by the Register of the Treasury. 

"2. Those issued by the Commissioners of Loans in the several Statps, including 
'certificates' given pursuant to the act of Congress of the 2d January, 1779, for bills of 
credit of the several emissions of the 20th May, 1777, and of the 11th April, 1778. 

«' Those issued by the Commissioners for the adjustment of the accounts of the quar- 
termaster, commissary, hospital, clothing, and marine departments.^ 

" 4. Those issued by the Commissioners for the adju:?tment of accounts in the respec- 
five States. 



21 

It did not embrace anytliing but iicgotuiblc paper of the old Cuiifed- 
eration. It 'did not iiichidc the Half-pay contraet. The present 
government was therefore interested in liaving the use of these cer- 
tificates, and they performed a great work of recuperation, of Pub- 
lic credit. 

Thus, after 'this second pro})Osition made to the officers had remain- 
ed' entircl}' unprovided for during eight years, and no portion of the 
• principal or interest, which was payable linnually, had been paid, 
certificates were finally scaled again, and given up, by a subscription 
to a loan lor the funding of the domestic debt, and a new proposition 
was made for the issuing of new certificates to the holders, (none of 
them being in Ihe hands of the officers at that time,) payable by annual 
instalments of eight dollars to the hundred, making a deduction of 
interest nearly equal to the jn-incipal. In this last proposition. Con- 
gress was more cautious, and reserved tlie right of paying this pro- 
portion of the debt or not. There "vv^as no positive assumption by the 
present government. The holders were still left in uncertainti/ as to 
the amount they were to receive, even under the second proposition. 
But as I before stated that it was ^^eciaWy gtuwanteed by this govern- 
ment, by the nintli section of this funding act, that nothing in this 
act contained shall be construed in any wise to alter, abridge or impair 
the rights of thuse creditors of the United. States, toho shall not subscribe 
to the said loan or the contracts upon which their respective claims 
are founded, but the contracts and rights sliall remain in full force.and 
virtue. This government'designedly made the broad and just distinc-, 
tion between tliese floating and dc))reciated certificates, and those which 
were in any way founded on special contracts, and for that reason dis- 
connected them from those contracts, and left them asthey^jad been 
stated in the books, a charge, and simply as i\, payment protanto . 

The act of Congress of March 22, 1783, admits the claim of the 
officers which accrued under the resolve of October 21, 1780, for half 
pay, to have been such a debt and engagement as is contemplated by 
the Constitution ; "for Avhich (says the vesolvc) the faith of the Uni- 
ted States hath been pledged ;" "whose services and sufferings have so 
just a ^t7/e to the approbation and i-ewards of their country." 

The solicitor even admits that the act of Oct. 21, 1780, was not repealed 
by the act of March 22, 178-3, and says it was so decided iu the case of Dr. 
Baird. He says that the act for half-pay is a valid subsisting contract, and 
cites resolutions of Congress of January 20 and February 11, 1781, and 
March 8, 1785, [4 Journals ?>31 and 337.] He says "the resolution of 1783 
simply provided one mode of discharging the promise of 1780. It could only 
be effected by the act of the party in accepting the terms offered by it. I 
have already shown that all these claims of the officers are attempted to be 
adjusted not by the act of March 22, but by the act of July 1783, in antici- 



" -5. Those issued by the late and present Ptiymaster General, or Commissioner of 
army accounts. 

"6. Those issued tor the payment ot interest, commonly called indents of interest. 

«< And the 'bills of credit' issued by the authority of the United States in Congress 
assembled, at the rate of one hundred dollars in the said, bills for one dollar in specie. 



22 

pation tbat the security by "substantial funds" would have been furnished, 
that not having been done, any inference of compromise or the substitution of 
the act of March, 1783, for that of 1780 ceased to exjst by operation of law, 
and the act giving the right to invalid officers the apportunity to return the 
amount of their certificates, and others having the same interest, as late as 
1788 es^tablishes the great fact that the government merely viewed them as a 
payment protanto, not as a compromise of the half-pay contract, and Congress 
in laucuage too comprehensive, too explicit and extensive to be misunderstood, 
secured them by this ninth section of the funding law — the 6th article of the 
Constitution of the United States provides as follows : 

1st. All debts contracted, and engagements entered into before the adop- 
tion of this Constitution, as under tlie Confederation. 

'That all debts contracted and engagements entered into bctnrc the adoption of this 
Constitution shall be as valid against the United States, under this Constitution, as 
under the Confederation." 

■2d. "The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made 
in pursuance thereof,' and all treaties made, or which shall be made under 
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; 
and the judges in. every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Con- 
stitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 

od. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members 
of the several Legislatures, and all exucutive and judicial officers, both of the 
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation 
to support this Constitution." 

The act of July 4, 1783, by which all claims against g-overnmeut were settled 
•was founded not in justice, not in right, but was one which originated in the 
"•reat national imperative necessity which could not Lave been avoided with- 
out great risk of the loss of this republican government which had cost so much 
blood and treasure ro acquire, which was always dear to those who made such 
sacrifices to obtain. The court are aware that it was well understood by 
Washington, that the peace between England and France, which was also to 
terminate the Avar with America, had been a-ireed upon as early as August 
1782.' How was the government to meet its pressing and overwhelming obli- 
gations, and particularly to the army, soon to be disbanded under the most 
pressing circumstances of destitution, and all the skill and influence of Wash- 
ington and the patriots of that day was necessary to save the republic. They 
could only hope to do so by the promise of security and the postponement of 
the day of payment of all of the obligations. Hence, we find that Congress 
treated all rumors of peace in a doubtful manner, and the appearance ef war 
kept up, and for that reason we find as early as August, 12, 1782, recorded 
on the GOth page, 4 journal of Congress, the following : ''Whereas from the 
publications, the people throughout the United States may be induced to be- 
lieve that Congress have received authentic communications upon the subject 
of approaching peace — 

"Kesolved, That it be and is hereby recommended to the several States in 
the Union, not to remit their exertions for carrying on the war with vigor, as 
the only effectual means of securing the settlement of a safe and honorable 
peace." 

Yet the alarm of creditors increased throughout the couotry, but more es- 
pecially those of the army, whose destitute condition had become distressing 
in a painful degree. 

Hence the memorial of the 14 officers, and the resolve oi Congress of July, 



2S 

25, 1783 in answer to that of March 22, and July 4, 1788 — all the re- 
suits of this great national exigency, and could not possibly have been avoid- 
ed ; whatever injury and injustice was thereby committed against nieritorioas 
creditors were the results of pressing necessities of the government. The Pay- 
master General, could not have done otherwise, and for the honor of human, 
itj, of justice, and the memory of that patriotic Congress, the memo- 
ry of Washington, wh}' not leave these transactions to rest on tliese 
foundations? why is it necessary to attempt to place the defence on the 
ground of a special favor made at the request of the officers, to a 
measure which embraced terms so unequal and so unjust, and 
after having made promise after promise only to be broken and pub- 
lic faith violated? why follow these claims into the administration of 
anew government, and attempt to show that all these unconstitution- 
al, unjust acts of the old confederation were all passed for the bene- 
fit of the creditors — why not admit the poverty and great and trying- 
exigencies of the old confederation to cover over her pages blotted 
with repudiation. 

I have, may it please the court, thus iar presented this case, a^ 
if these claims were still open to a defence and the subject of con- 
troversy. I wish now to call tlio attention of the court to the action 
of Congress as well as this court, by which it will be seen that— 

THESE CLAIMS ARE NO LONGER OPEN TO DEFENCE. 

What have been some of the Jlctions of Congress ? 

Those who were members of the old and new governments have 
said, in the said ninth section, that these contracts and rights shall 
not be impaired hy the issuing of these certificates ; "but that the 
contracts and rights shall remain in full force and virtue." This act 
is imperative in its language, and binding on this court as well as 
that of Congress. But this is not the only act by which Congress 
has admitted the continuation and existence of the half pay con- 
tract. 

The committee- of the Senate, who reported the bill providing for 
the surviving officers and soldiers of the army, which passed 15th 
May, 1828, composed of such able and profound lawyers as Wood- 
bury, Webster, Eerrian, Van Buren, Hayne and Harrison, advocated 
on strict common law principrcs. 

Mr. Woodbury, Chairman of that committee, expressed his opinion 
in the strongest language, in support of these claims. (1) Also, a 



(1) -'But they have averred, and it is again repeated, that these officers are seeking a 
right, and that is a right both on common-law and on chancery principles. But if on 
only one, whether it he a right on strict common-law principles, or on chancery prin- 
c pies, it is equally a right, and the claim is equally a legal claim. The forum in which 
it becomes a right does not alter its legality. Hence, if every gentleman would agree 
with him irom Virginia, (Mr. Tyler,) that the statute of limiiation should be scorned, 
and that the pretended payments made to these officers was 'mere wind, mere trash,' 
I aver that, m any forum, before any court or jury in Christendom, this right, as be- 
ween individuals, could now be unanswerably established. Let the issue be formed. 



24 

report of the IToiise of January 3, 1826. (2) Also, that of the Sen- 
ate of 1838. (3) It will be seen that the act of 182S recognized all 
their leii-al riu'lits. 



and the cause tried tosmorrow, and no three or five judges, no twelve <good men and 
true,' as jurors, could say that the wages of toil and blood, the solemn promises for 
sacrifices and sufferings, to secure the Hberties of American, had ever been discharged 
hy only 'wind and trash." « + ««♦«* 

"Without dwelling a moment on considerations before urged in the argument, in favor 
of the legality of this claim, let me ask, what has been the reply to the position of the 
committee, ihat, on strict legal principles, the promise of half pay lor life, has ever been 
fulfilled ? Has any one shown that the half pay, in the form of half pay, has ever been 
paid ? No pretence for it. Hiis any one shown that the half pay has ever been tech- 
nically released ? No pretence for it. * - * * * * * 

"How, then, has the promise of October, 1780', been fulfilled ? In no. way, except 
by the act of commutation. But it could not be fulfilled by that act, unless all things 
were transacted in conformity to the provisions of that act." * * * » 

* * "Everybody feels and knows likewise, that the payment, to be in conform- 
ity to the act, was to have been money, or at least securities equivalent to money, 
when, in truth, it was neither ; and even under the most favorable view, if the certifi- 
cates were kept till the funding, fell short of what was due, from one fourth to one- 
third. So the certificites, or the payment, should have been made in September, 1783, 
but were not, in fact, made uniil some time in 1784-85, when worth much less. But, 
break through the forms of measures, and every lawyer, every constitutional statesman 
must admit that on strict legal principles, there should not only have been a conform- 
ity to the commutation act, but in the act itself, to make it binding, there should have 
been a reg-ard to private vested rights." 

(2) This claim for lialf piy was again admitted in the report of Mr. Hemphill, of the 
committee of the House, of January 3, 18-6, in which he sjys "that, by virtue of these 
resolves, a solemn contract between the Government and the officers was made, that 
ought to be observed on the part of the Government with the most profound sanctity. 
That when the power of rescision resides exclusively in the besom of one of the par- 
ties, it should be exceedingly cautious that justice should be done to the other; that 
claims are founded on a contract whic.li has not been fairly rescinded, and it it has, 
there cannot possibly be a doubt that the commutation contiact has not been fulfilled;" 
and rtcomiuended allowing the officers their half pjy, deducting their commutation cer- 
tificates, without any reference to what may have bee.T recovered under the pauper 
acts of 1818 and 1823. 

Mr. Burges made a verj' able report to the House, Kebuary 11, 1828, in which the 
committee say "that, in their opinion, the delivery of those certificates, as well on 
general piinciples as on those which govern courts of law or equity, did not annul the 
right of half pay or exonerate the Government from the obligations of the origiuid con- 
tract. Such of those offi -crs as hud survived the w;ir, and continued in the service un- 
til the peace, became severally and individually vested with a complete riglit to the 
reward of half pay for the residue of their lives. 

"The reward was gallantly won at the point of the sword ; it was the price of our in- 
dependence, purchaskd with blood and sanctioned by public faith." 

(3) So the commi tee of the Senate, in 1838, reported : 

"After an assiduous investigation, the commit' ec conclude that no legislation subse- 
quent to the 21st of October, 1780, could or by a lair construction did, cuntravene, or 
in any manner impair the claims of the officers of the army, or any class of such offi- 
cers, to the half hay promised them by the act of October 21, 178U. The half pay for 
life contracted by the act of October, 1780, to be paid to the officers of the army for 
certain services to be performed by them, instantce became a vested right, of which 
subsequent legislation nor noihing whatever could divest the officers, save a failure on 
his part to perform the prescribed service. And it would be a libel on the good sense 
and jiistice of the distinguished statesmen and patrots of that period, to imagine even 
that any legislation subsequent to the 21st of October, 1780, had for its object to impair 
the deliberate engagement made by that act to allow half pay for life to the officers of 
the army." • 



At the 33d Congress, the much lamented Senator Evans, of South 
Carolina, chairman of committee of Revolutionary claims, reported a 
bill for the final settlement of all these claims, which passed the Sen- 
ate on the 22d of February, 1855, by a vote of 26 to 15, which was 
not reached in the House. At the 1st session of the next (Slth) Con- 
gress, a bill was reported by Hon. Jacob Brown, of the House, on the 
30th July, 1856, and ably sustained in his report on legal as well as 
equitable grounds, and passed the House by a vote of 106 to GO; 
which was reported in the Senate without amendment. It was, how- 
ever, in the accidental absence of some of its friends, postponed, 
by a vote of 24 to 23 ; and was, therefore, deferred to the 35th Con- 
gress. 

The strongest objection urged in the Senate by the opponents of 
that bill, was, that it was partial, and provided for the settlement of 
only a portion of the claims, in exclusion of others just as meritori- 
ous. At the last (35th) Congress, early in the first session, a bill was 
offered by R. E. Fenton, of New York, which reported back to the 
House, by Hon. Mr. Cragin, of the committee on Revolutionary 
claims, without amendment, in which these claims are placed, and 
ably supported on legal principles; and I would invite the attention of 
the court to the able, legal and concise speech of Mr. Fenton, in support 
of these claims. The court may not be aware that, by the rules of the 
House, if a bill, when reached on the calender, shall be objected to 
by one member only, it require a two-third vote to suspend the rules, 
in order to have it considered. This bill having been thus objected 
to, the motion of Mr. Fenton to suspend the rules, in the anxiety of 
adjournment, did not prevail ; and thus this bill remains, with the 
unfinished business of Congress. And so long as a rule, so much at 
variance with the principles of our government shall continue, fifty 
years will be as one month in regard to private rights. 

But I wish now to invite the particular attention of the Court to 
the action of Congress, and especially where the act was in confirma- 
tion of the opinion of the Court which act of Congress embraced all the 
considerations of the case at bar, and all of these half pay time hon- 
ored cortracts, and have fully and conclusively established the rights 
of all those claims which are emioraced in the contract of Oct. il, 
1780, and removed them forever from all controversy. j^What were 
the points settled appear — in 

STATEMENT OP THE CASE OF THOMAS H. BAIRD, EX'R OF DR. ABSALOM 
BAIRD, FOR HALF PAY. 

Payment of full pat/ in specie no ditchargs of half pay contract. 
In this he petitioned Congress (not for half pay) for cam- 
mutation of jpay, which was postponed for many years, and 
an act was finally passed of June 3, 1836, by which the 
proper accounting officers of the treasury are requested to 
»e^ the account of Dr. Absalom Baird, and to allow him, or 

(4) 



&c., compensation equal io five years full pay, without interest, 
which five years' full pay is the commutation for his half pay 
for life' — (6 Stat. L., 641.) This sum was duly paid at the 
treasury. Afterward, on the 27th of December, 1837, he 
again presented his petition for the balance of the claim, and 
in 1855, the claim for the interest was referred, by Congress, 
to this court. It was contended by the solicitor for the 
United States — 

1. That Dr. Baird did not come within the provisions of the acts prom- 
ising half pay for life, because he did not come within that class of officers. 

2. Because the act of 1836, allowing him half pay, without interest, was 
not in itself evidence that he was embraced in the half pay acts — and 

3. That the act of Congress of 1836, which authorized the officers of the 
treasury to settle the account of Dr. Baird, and to allow his representatives 
compensation, without interest, which Congress, in said act, declared to be 
the commutation for his half 'pay for life, he having received the amount, 
without objection, it was a compromise and a final settlement of his half 
■pay ; that he knew very well what he teas about when he received it, without 
objection. 

Chief Justice Gilchrist delivered the opinion of the court, 
(1) . One other of the court delivered a dissenting opinion. 

(1) Says Chief Justice Gilchrist; — ''The proceedings in relation to the claim for com- 
mutation do not appear to be very material in relation to the case in the present posi- 
tion. On the 23d March, 1783, a resolution was passed, providing that the officers and 
others entitled to half pay for life ' shall be entitled to receive, at the end of the war, 
their five years' full pay, in lieu of half pay for life, in money — that is, specie — or in 
securities on interest, as Congress shall find most convenient.* On the 2sth of January^ 
1794-, Dr. Baird apphed for the benefit of this provision, but died in the year 1806 — 
having, as is said in the report of the Committee of Claims of the 5th February, 1855, 
'become wearied and disheartened with delay.' In the year 1818, his son, Thomas H. 
Baird, having become of age, petitioned Congress for relief; and on the 3d of March, 
1855, the committee reported that ' Dr. Absalom Baird was entitled to the benefit of 
the act of the 17th of January, 1781, extending the grant of half pay for life to the 
officers of the hospital department and medical staff.' No action was had upon the 
resolution until the 22d of June, 183G, when an act was passed granting five years' full 
pay as commutation, under the resolution of 1783, but without interest. 

"Now, this claim does not depend for its validity upon any admission contained in 
the act of 18S6. But the Congress which passed that act must have considered that 
Dr. Baird had a legal claim of some kind ; otherwise their conduct, in granting him 
five years' full pay, was wholly indefensible. It is, however, relied upon as a final settle- 
ment of the claim. Upon any principle known to the law, this position is wholly unte- 
nable. It is easy enough to declare, ex cathedra, that it was a final settlement. But it 
is extremely difficult to imagine, in the absence of all evidence, what reasons can be 
urged for holding that the payment of a eum of money is of itself a discharge of a debt 
for a larger amount. A plea of payment of a small sum in eatisfaction of a larger is 
bad, even after verdict. (2 Parsons on Contracts, ISO, and notes.) This principle 
is familiar to every lawyer. A debt may be paid by a fair and well understood 
compromise, carried faithfully into effect. Bui here there was no compromise. — 
li it were a case between individuals, no one would dream of applying such a 
term to it. The United States are either bound by principles of law applicable 
to them, or they are not so bound. If they are not bound, there is au end of 
the discussion — for then all reasoning is fruitless. If they are bound by tha pria^ 
oiples of law, ii it impotnble to regard the payment of five years' full pay, without 
Interest, *» a «i,tj«!f««tlon of this claim. Th«r» is 00 eridftao* tb«it sithw pt?t7 •<> f*- 



27 

Thi minority and majority reports of this court were both submitted to 
Congress. The dissenting opinion alleges that "the word compensation 
" which the act uses, is a very common one — it means recompense, satis/ac- 
^'tion, amends. So that the five years' full pay, without interest, was paid 
" and received as a recompense for, or in satisfaction of the services in ques- 
"tion." Again — "That act of 183G, after allowing said compensation of 
" five years full pay, says, which five years' full pay is the commutation for 
"his half -pay for life," &c. " Therefore, . Congress, by the act of 1836, 
" paid the claimant five years' full pay, without interest, in exchange for the 
" half pay for life, or, in other words, Congress satisfied the claim of half 
"'pay for life by the payment of five years' full pay, without interest, which 
" five years' full pay, says the Jaw, is the commutation of the half pay for 
" life. The same claimant afterwards received at the treasury, under the 
" law and without objection, the said five years' full pay. The same claim- 
"ant now demands of the Government the same half pay, with interest, 
"before demanded, deducting the said sum of twenty-four hundred dollars. 
" My opinion is, that the payment and receipt of said sum of money, al- 
" lowed the claimant by the act of 1836, is a bar to the present demand, 
" were it otherwise tenahle. That the allowance of five years' full pay, with- 
^'out interest, was in exchange for and in satisfaction of the whole demand." 

Here, then, is presented the claim of one these joint and 
several imyees of the same contract. Where the ejQfect of the 
payment of the five yeard full pay was expressly and dis- 
tinctly presented to Congress, accompanied by the reasons on 
both sides, by the able judges and attorneys for the Govern- 
ment, to influence Congress in their decision. Congress, in 
1836, had confined the claim for half pay to the five yeard 
full pay, without interest ; they are called upon again to re- 
view their decision of 1836, and with the opinions of the 
court before them, they reverse their decision, and here, in 
this claim presented by one of the joint and several payees of 
the same half pay contract, where the question of the effect 
of the payment, even in specie, of the five years' full pay, was 
expressly and distinctly presented to Congress. What, may 

garded it ; and, unless we set at defiance every principle of law, we cannot hold that 
one party to a contract, without the consent of the other, can discharge his debt by the 
payment of a smaller sum than the amount due." * * * '« The amount of Dr. 
Baird's half pay was $240 per annum, payable at the end of every year. He was enti- 
tled to this sum up to the 27th day of October, 180.5, the day of his death, and interest 
on the payments as they became du«, according to the express provisions of the resolu- 
tions of June 3, 1784." 

The Court of Claims, therefore, reported a bill for the relief of Thomas H. Baird: 
"^e it enacted, ^'c, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, directed, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to Thomas H. 
Baird, administrator of the estate of Absalom Baird, a commissioned surgeon in the 
army of the Revolution, the sum of $10,074 84, with interest thereon from the 27th 
day of October, 1805, to the Ist day of June, 1856, deducting therefrom the sum (.if 
$2,400, paid under the act of Jvin^ 23, 1826 " i 



2S 

p!eas0 the court, was the decision on revieto, even in thii 
case, where the party himself received the amount loithcmt ob- 
jection ? Congress affirmed the opinion of the Chief Justice, 
and decided thereby that the reception of the full pay, with- 
out objection, and even where the act by which the same 
was paid, declared it to he the commutation for the half pay 
for life ; or, in other words, " in exchangd^ for the half pay, 
v^OjS no bar, no compromise.' Here, may please the court, 
is the positive law of Congress, which is the legislative con- 
struction and declaration made in behalf of one, and if to one, 
to all who are embraced in the same contract, and virtually 
declaring that these just debts are no longer suspended by rea' 
son of the effect of the acts of July 4, or of March 22, 1783, 
and that the act of October 21, 1780, and the 9 th section of 
the funding act of August 4, 1790, are in full force and 
virtue: The creditors, therefore, have no occasion for a new 
act of Congress to expound or enforce their rights. They have 
no occasion for Congress to grant to this court more enlarged 
powers of jurisdiction, to enable them to determine and com- 
mend these claims for payment. Congress having referred 
this contract to this court, there clearly implied, if not con- 
ferred all the power of expressing an opinion which they have, 
and that opinion having been acted upon, and settled by 
Congress, the question of construction is no longer open for 
consideration. 

It seems unnecessary to extend this part of the argument, 
inasmuch as the defence admits that the old Confederation 
was insolvent, and that they had no authority to pledge the 
credit of the several States, or that of the Confederation, 
and virtually convicts that government, and the Congress, of 
the crime of having obtained the fortunes and services of the 
officers under false pretences — (Defence by the U. S.) viz : 
" that, at the time Congress continued to pass these acts for 
half pay, that they had no authority and no power to enforce 
contracts — that " 

"The States, at this time, were the real sovereigns; Congress was a mere 
'' assembly of ambassadors. The army was in the pay of the States; the 
«' officers vf ere appointed by them, though commissioned by Congress. What- 
<' ever Congress might resolve was of no effect, unless concurred in by the 
<' States; and the officers of those States in which the half pay system was 
i^ regarded with aversion must have felt thai' it would be dangerous to bravd 



" public sentiment at home, relying upon no other support than that of Con- 
" gress. The States might, as Massachusetts afterward did, on this account, 
" withhold their quotas from the common treasury, and in this way, at least, 
" might render the resolution a dead letter." 

And that this induced the officers to request a commuta- 
tion. But he also says — 

"That the offer of commutation made in the resolution of March 22, 
"1788, did not, and was not intended to deprive the officers of the benefits of 
" the resolution of 1780, but was made in order to enable the officers to relieve 
" themselves from the odium which was raised against them in some of the 
" States, as the recipients of pensions from the Federal Government, and as 
'^being thus distinguished from the mass of their fellow citizens." 

And still further — that, notwithstanding the credit of the 
Government was then bad, ^'-that the certificates given them 
are worth as much in market as the hplf pay would- have 
been." In relation, to the first objection, the answer is found 
in a just maxim of law, that no man or government shall be 
permitted to take any advantage of their own wrong. As to 
the second, the solicitor must have assumed the conclusion 
that the certifioate for five years' full pay, due to an old man, 
was worth as much as a certificate for twenty years, due to a 
young officer — each of the same grade — or that either would 
be worth as much as a certificate for their half pay for life, of 
the same age and grade of office, because there never was 
issued a certificate to a,ny officer (to which they were each 
entitled, but refused to all the officers,) for his half pay for 
life. But if the very old officer lost less, the younger officer 
must have lost more ; and, as I have before stated, as there 
were twenty-five young officers to one old one, there must have 
been twenty-five lost where one gained by this course. 

And still he adds further — 

" That the acceptance by any officer of the commutation offered by Con- 
" gress in the resolution of March 22, 1783, was an accord and satisfaction, 
" and, in law, was a full discharge of the promise contained in the resolu- 
'' tion of October, 1780; and, though not necessary as a legal defence." 

And says — 

"An accord is defined by Story (Contract*, §982) to be anargreement be- 
" tween two parties to substitute some equivalent in satisfaction of a claim 
" due from one to the other. Such an agreement must be advantageoua, in 
" full satisfaction, certain, and perfectly executed." 

The evidence finds that these certificates were not delivered by any " agree- 
ment" of the parties, but were charged to, sent, or delivered to these credi- 
tors, in pursuance of the law of July 4, 1783, and by the imperative rule of 



30 

fehft taywiaBter general j and the evidence finds, beyond all doubt, that it waa 
greatly disadvantageous, that it was entirely uncertain, depending upon th« 
same Confederation as the contract for half pay, and as the facts before re- 
lated prove, never was perfectly " executed;" and the evidence finds, that it 
was not one-third in amount of the value of the half pay due to all tht 
j-ounger officers ; and the amount of said certificates, if they had even been 
payable in specie, was not an equivalent in satisfaction of his half pay debt, 
which had then, by the peace, become "certain," to which all thSse credi 
tors had acquired a vested right, secured to them by a positive law of Con* 
gress, payable in specie or other current money, equivalent," by the acts of 
October 3 and 21, 1780. If the solicitor had read a little further of the 
same section, (982d,) he would have found that authority was opposed 
to the defence — viz : " If the accord be to pay money in satisfaction, it will 
not operate as a defence until payment is actually made ; and proof of readi- 
ness to pay, or even of a tender and refusal, is not sufficient, for a mere agree- 
ment to do a future act is only an accord without satisfaction, which is no 
defence." "An agreement by creditors to accept five shillings and sixpence 
in the pound, in full satisfaction of their claim, was held to create no bar to 
an action for the full debt, there being no consideration to support the agree- 
ment." — (Story 982, section 6.) 

But the solicitor further admits, "that the resolution of October 21, 
" 1780, was not repealed, in legal effect, has been decided in Baird's case, 
" in which half pay for life was recovered under that resolution. That there 
" is no expression in the resolution of 1783 indicating an intention to cut 
" off the half pay of any officer, save those who should accept the full pay," 
And he adds, that the expression is, that the officers "shall be entitled to 
" receive commutation — -not that they shall receive it." 

These are the same words which are used in acts of May 15, 1778, and 
October 3, 1780; if when used in the act of 1783, they were considered to 
be more imperative on the part of the Government, and to leavf any right 
of option to the officer, then the paymaster transcended his duty in constru- 
ing these words to mean, that all the officers should receive these certificates 
for full pay. The facts find, as I have before stated, that he refused even 
to settle or state an account, without first crediting the officer with this full 
pay and charging them with these certificates; and what aggravates the de- 
fence still more is the fact, that, after having charged and delivered the offi- 
cers many thousand dollars on these certificates for arrears of pay, which 
they were ixnable to obtain more than ten cents on the dollar for, the pay- 
master continued to issue and charge more of these certificates ; and, while 
there was no hope or chance of payment, continued to insert in them com- 
mutation for half pay for life. The act of July 4, 1783, by which all de- 
mands against the Government were settled, left to the paymaster but one 
way and one only, and he adhered to that without a single exception. Nei- 
ther the justice of these meritorious debts, nor the pressing wants of the 
officers, could save them from the imperative rules of the paymaster generaL 
And yet the solicitor endeavors to distort this known deliberate wrong, thi* 
great exigency of the Government, into an agreement of the creditor. 

What would be said of a banking house who should continue to issue bill* 
of credit under the pretence that they would soon be redeemed, and still 
keep on, year after year, making no provision for their redemption, but con- 
tinue to isBue theix bills as a substitute or exchange for an obligation for 



n 

twice the amount — and the bank, in the mean time, assigns all thair effectSj 
without having paid one cent of principal or interest ? What would be said 
of a lawyer who should come into court in defence of a suit brought on the 
original contract, on which is credited these worthless bills at their face — 
and while he admitted the bills to have been worth only 12 cents on the 
dollar, contend that they were worth as much as the obligation for twice 
the amount, because they were negotiable, and ask the court to discharge 
the whole debt, on the ground that if one was bad so was the other — that a 
faithless broken promise for one-half the amount, which had never been 
paid, was worth as much as the whole, and, without citing an authority, 
ask this court to decree the original contract discharged — notwithstanding 
the act of Congress had specially declared that the original contract shall not 
be impaired by reason of these bills of credit. And the defence to go still 
further and contend, that the corporation was not legally authorized to make 
the contract, and if not that, it was doubtful whether they would ever com- 
ply with its terms, was one of the causes which induced the creditors to ac- 
cept of these bills of credit for half the amount, and but not a twenty-fourth 
part of the value of the contract. Another reason alleged was, that as the 
creditor had already lost many thousand dollars by these same debtors, and 
they had been thus reduced to such a state of pecuniary want, that the 
twelve per cent, went to his immediate relief, and was worth more than two 
hundred per cent, in the future. 

If an individual should be knocked down in the night time and robbed 
of all the money he had in the world, with the uncertainty which must at- 
tend its recovery, and he could receive one-twelfth, it may be true that one- 
twelfth actually paid over, would be worth as much as the whole in the 
pocket of the robber ; but such a transaction would hardly be viewed, in a 
court of law, as an "accord" and ''satisfaction" of the claim. Such is the 
moral and legal deduction to bo made from the defence to these claims. 
How could it be otherwise? A few patriotic men of the provinces and 
States undertake to declare themselves independent, and set up for them- 
selves, and contend with the most powerful government on earth, surrounded 
with tories and enemies at home, and to carry on a war of eight years dura- 
tion almost entirely on credit, and finally, after peace is declared, having no 
means to pay even the interest on their indebtedness, upon the same princi- 
ple of right, or rather the suspension of right, from imperative necessity, 
which induced them to distrain cows and oxen of the citizens to feed the 
army, Congress passed a law ordering the paymaster general to settle all the 
demands existing against the Government? In what way? By paying 
them in specie? 0, no! Of course not, for they had none. How then? 
Why they authorize him to issue certificates payable to the creditor or bearer,, 
for the sum or sums which should be found due, payable in ten years, with 
interest annually. Now this was certainly a very easy way to pay off a hun» 
dred millions of dollars. As I examined the acts of Congress in relation tO' 
these debts, I was struck with the resemblance to that of a case of an old 
acquaintance of early life. He was fond of display and disposed to buy and 
borrow extensively, and had the reputation of being a man of property; 
but, to the great surprise of his neighbors, he put a notice on his door 
sUting that he had stopped payment for twelve months, and that no de- 
mands against him would be settled before that time, unless his creditors 
t^^ld tMM tb»yr pay ia snoh paper as hs held, oi twelve e«Qt« oa the dollar 



cash. The notice, of course, was without any date, and when he was sued 
by one of his creditors, to whom he had paid twelve per cent, in money, 
and charged the same as being full, he came into court and pleaded this no- 
tice in defence of the claim, and th8 defence only failed because the court 
decided it required two to make a bargain, and although the creditor saw 
him mnke the charge on his books, in full. But if he had only had the 
power which Oongress had, and exercised that power as Congress did, by 
excluding all the creditors of the United States from the jurisdiction of her 
courts as plaintiflFs, he would have been perfectly safe, and could have done 
as the United States does now, after having closed the doors of her courts 
against her creditors for sixty years, seek to avoid the payment of these just 
debts, and attempt to raise the presumption of payjnent from lapse of time, 
or that the creditors agreed to accept, and did accept, certificates for a cer 
tain amount, which was not one-half the value, which they never paid, and 
which they admit are not worth much, because they say, at that time the 
creditor of the United States was bad. It would afford the creditor of an 
insolvent debtor no particular satisfaction to be told that the reason why his 
notes were of so little value was because he was poor, which had been the 
cause of a loss of maay thousands to him on other paper against the same 
debtor, and that which he then held was worth just as much as that on 
which he had lost his all before. But that is not all; among the certificates 
charged to the same officer for a number of thousands of dollars, at the 
same time the United States finds some of the certificates which are paya- 
ble to the officer or bearer, which read for a certain sum, in which, for his 
own accommodation, the paymaster to keep the books straight, had inserted 
that the same was- the commutation for half pay, and the solicitor asks the 
court not only to allow them to stand as they now do, as a payment pro taniOy 
but in violation of all principles of right; that they must not only lose what 
they have on all tho other certificates, as well as these, but that he would 
have the court go still further, and ask that the charge and delivery of these 
certificates should now be resuscitated and be considered as a final settlement 
of the half pay contract, although held and funded by strangers. That a 
broken, faithless promise to pay, on the part of the Government, was equal 
to actual payment by one individual to another ; that, as corporations had 
no souls, it was unnecessary for them to have any honor. 

But there is another aspect of the case, which, to my mind, renders the 
defence still more objectionable and dishonorable — viz . the present United 
States are merely the assignees and trustees of the effects and public domain 
of the old Confederation, and in this double capacity are to answer to the 
creditors of tho United States. In order to encourage the army, some of the 
States, as early as 1781, Virginia particularly, and New York, ceded all 
their public lauds to tho old Confederation, and it was at the earnest request 
of General Washington, and well understood that they were to constitute a 
fund for paying the debts, and specially those of the army. And the United 
States, by the 6th article of the Constitution, assumed the payment of thoso 
debts, although certain claims of the Virginia line were named, yet the su- 
preme court of the United States decided they were to apply to all the lines 
<yi the army, and hence we find that the— 



PuhUe Lands of the United State* vsere pledged for the payment of them debt*. 

The twenty-second section of the funding act of August 4, 1790, provide* 
" that the proceeds of the sales which shall be made of lands in the western 
*' territory now belonging or that may hereafter belong to the United States, 
" shall be and arc hereby appropriated towards sinking or discharging the 
*' debts for the payment whereof the United States now are, or by virtue of 
<r this act, may be holden, and shall be applied solely to that use, until th» 
" said debts shall be fully aatisfiod." 

The creditors are seeking the payment of these just debts through their 
own funds, placed in the hands of the United States as a sacred trust. The 
army conquered these lands for the States, and the States ceded them to the 
United States, to be " applied solely to that use until the said debts shall be 
fully satisfied." These half pay debts were excluded from the jurisdiction of 
settlement by the several States — nor did they come within the ordinances 
for settling the accounts and demands of individuals with the States — nor do 
they embrace any portion of $114,409,303 10 — sums allowed to the credit 
of the several States by the United States. While Congress is so liberal 
with appropriations for the reward of even the show of military service, is it 
not a declaration to this court, as the judiciary branch of Congress, to be gov- 
erned by the most liberal rules of construction ? Will this court not say 
that these creditors should have a small portion of their own funds, while 
over 139,000,000 acres, up to June, 1857, had been sold for cash, over 
60,000,000 for military bounty land warrants, 67,000,000 for schools, and 
over 10,000,000 for internal improvements? Over 50,000,000 acres have 
been granted by Congress for a nominal service of three months and four^ 
teen days, of the value of more than §60,000,000. 

The children of those who acquired these lands by many years service, 
were all excluded because they were not minors, were over 21 years old. 
There are still left of this trust fund, undisposed of, over one thousand mil- 
lions of acres of land. 

From whatever point the defence set up in the present case may be viewed 
to my mind it has neither reason, law, equity, or justice, to sustain it. If 
sucli a defence could be entertained by this court, or the Congress of tho 
United States, I should be induced to the conclusion, that America had too 
many monuments dedicated to liberty and too few to justice — and I hope 
soon to see towering to the skies, one at the entrance of every city and the 
corner of every street, to inspire, if possible, a love of justice and the resnect 
for private rights, which should become a sentiment and fixed principle, to 
influence the heart and enoble thcL character of every citizen of this great 
and glorious Republic, until public and private duty should become, in their 
influence, coextensive with the purity and power of the ballot box, felt and 
respected in every department, of the administration of public as well as private 
affairs; until justice, good faith,honor,gratitude,and all the other qualities of the 
heart which enoble the character, honor the nation and fulfill the great and glori- 
ous objects of our republican form of Government, give a dignity and value 
to liberty which has never been enjoyed. What is the value of liberty while 
its pretended followers overlook and override all respect for private righti, 
mnd security to the eharacter and property of the citizen ? The honor of t 
Ittett twuiot tnd ooghl not loof sarrive the i&diffexeaM^ &«^f«lb tid 4^ 

(6) 



regard of the rigbts of her citizens. Public and prirate virtue cannot long 
"" exist separated— from each other. That which is a duty as a citizen, is 
equally a duty on the part of a member of Congress, a judge of a court, and 
the officers of all the departments of the government. This great fact must 
be felt in every precinct of the United States, until every citizen may be 
able to say that he is protected by the laws, in all his private as well as pub- 
lic rights; that justice is administered to him freely, without sale, com- 
pletely and without denial, promptly and without delay. We would go to 
war with every foreign nation to redress one half the wrong committed by 
them against the American people, which this Government itself commits 
against its own citizens every week. It is only a few months since we sent 
a large fleet to Paragua, at the expense of many millions, to coerse the pay- 
ment of ten thousand dollars due from an uncivilized nation, while debts justly 
due her own citizens, known positively to be due, and have been more than 
a half century, since we are able to pay, and for which the United States 
hold in trust over one thousand millions of acres of land for the paymout of 
these just debts due to the great benefactors of our race to whom wc are in- 
debted for the existence of this glorious republic, without exciting any par- 
ticular interest, not enough to bo generally examined, or redress granted. 

May we not hope that the raccnt law, doubling the pay of the members of 
Coniiress, may enable them to devote more of their time to the Administra- 
tion^'of public affairs-^that this nation may be not only great in all their 
Govorumental and political relations, but prove to the world that where the 
heart enjoys the largest liberty of conscience, it has the highest appreciation 
of right, tnat public and private virtue are unitedly resting upon the eternal 
principles of justice. 

Having thus shown that toe Act of Congress in behalf of the claim of 
Doctor liaird, placed these half pay claims beyond all controversy, and that 
this court, in the present case will consider that decision binding ; not be- 
cause it was in confirmation of a rule of this court, but because the constitu- 
tion requires that all laws of Congress shall be supreme. What is the juris- 
diction and object of the Court of Claims ? Suppose this court should think 
proper to overrule that decision, and decide against all the points settled in 
that case ; and decide that iu all cases, where these certificates were charged 
to the officers, that it was at their option to accept or refuse them, instead of 
a certificate for half pay for life. This would not abrogate or change the 
express and clear reading of the act itself, which declares that the officers 
shall not have the right to reject these certificates for full pay. This would 
not destroy the record evidence. The books of the Government, which show 
that, in no case, did the paymaster general ever charge or deliver a certifi- 
cate for half pay to any officer, though requested. Suppose they decided 
that these worthless certificates for full pay, charged to the officers, were spe- 
cie or security, to be a compliance with the terms of even the act of March 
22nd. Such a decision cannot change the public record of the utter insol- 
vency of the old confederation. It would not wipe out the law by which all 
the certificates were then scaled at two and a half dollars to the hundred. — 
Suppose this court should also decide that these officers had never after- 
Wards expressed any dissatisfaction at these continued broken promises, would 
that erase the repeated applications recorded, of the complaints to Congress 
of this great iujustiod, and the many hnndxed aot« in which Congress has at- 






tempted remuneration in different, forms, •vtr nnoe th* foundation of tko 

Governmeut? ' (3..^ -' 4r ,b- -v-'l "-' • - „ ■■ -^ 'rfe*m» 

But, having been so unjustly foi*ced upon tbe officers, and although the in- "^ 

terest on these certificates was payable annually, not one cent was ever paid '» 

to the original payees or the holders, during the existence of the old confede- » 

ration. And only about 63 cents on the dollar was ever paid over to the 5 

holders, and that on a long term of time of some thirty years. And, not- "i 

withstanding, if this court should decide that these worthless certificates, en- '^ 

tirely disconnected from the contract and in the hands of strangers, passing ■ 
from hand to hand, for ten cents on the dollar, should be considered as still 

connected with the original contract, such a decision could not erase the 9th "-■ 

section of the law of Congress of August 4, 1790, which expressly declares : ■> 

" That nothing in this act contained shall be construed in any wise to i 
alter, abridge, or impair the rights of those creditors of the United' States 

who shuir not subscribe to the said loan, or the contracts upon which their ■- 

respective claims are founded: but the contracts and rights ^shalt remain in * 
full force and virtue.'' '- ^■'•- ' ;■::!;:: ?:;r l;c-;^ t :tr -* - ,r ^• tt 

And if this court should decide that the present Government is not liable ' ''"^'^ 
for the debts of the old confederation, it could not thereby erase the sixth ..^ 
article of the constitution which provides — ■ ! 

" That all debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adop- 
tion of this constitution shall be as valid against the United States, under >Qi 
this constitution, as under the confederation." ■ " 'i* 

The much abused act of March 22, 1783, declares — !,t 

'' That the faich of the United States hath been pledged to those officers ' 

whose services and sufferings have so justra title to the appropriation and I 

rewards of their country." ,1; 

Independent of an}' suggestions or opinion of this court, the third section . i 

of the constitution provides— that • o 

" The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of t 

the several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial officers, both * 

of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by an oath or 
affirmation to support this constitution." ■ ic> i^v: ■^u'.l: .l.. : 

Suppose this court shall fail to sec that'^he'tems specie or security, ex- 
pressly provided in the half pay, as well as the full pay, acts made by a ' 
Government which had scaled its own paper, and would not receive certifi- 
cates for over two and a half dollars to the hundred, that they did not re- 
quire to be based on any special fund. This would not erase the act of Jan- 
uary 25, 1783, which specially provides, that they are to be based on sub- 
stantial securities to be furnished by the several States. Congress would 
still be bound by these laws, whether the court considered them binding or 
not. :• ■ ' ' ■ . ' ., •'■'■'•ri;^'-" 

If this court sKIl decide ihstt, as the cei-tificates were payable to bearfer^^-,-!^ 
it was optional with the holders to fnnd them or not, it would not, in any 
way, operate against the original payees in their claim for the balance of the 
half pay as they are charged by the Government for the fall amount. 

I, however, concur in the opinion often expressed by this court, that this 
is no place for this class of claims which are conclusively settled by the laws 
of the Congress of the old and present Government, and the 6th article of 
the constitution. They do not call for the' taking or consideration of any 
testimony of witnesses, as they rest on the positive laws of Congress. Tha 



xniiiit ii Shted, Md If txf tfiliig ^m beefe jMia, ft if »im fiz«€ ly • hw ^f 

CoDjzreit. If Coogreii trish for ezpoundert of their own laws, thtcrtditozt 
ihould have the right to have that of a eourt of the highest juriEdiction. X 
, Mnnot conceive a claim in which the unsettled, limited, jurisdiction of thig 
court can afford any relief to the creditors of this Government — possessed of 
no power to enforce the payment of a judgment, and still left to the discre- 
tion and repudiation of Congress, It seems to be regarded merely as a 
bridge over which repudiators of just debts can pass, and avoid their obliga^ 
tion to the laWs of Congress, the constitution, and the oath of office, and 
used for the continued suspension of just debts. It is hard, indeed, for the 
creditors of the United States to be at the expense of urging their claims be» 
fore a court which has only the power of sending their claim back to the 
discretion of Congress. This appears to be a heavy tax to creditors, as well 
as a large expense to the Government, without any benefit. Congress and 
the court appear to be great competitors in all the sources of delay, as if there 
was more honor and usefulness in suspension and repudiation than in pay* 
ment of just debts long due from the Unit«d States. 

Jn what doet the Discretionary Potoer, a$ Referred to hy the Court of 
Claims, consist ? 

Does this power extend to all the other branches of the Government ? — to 
the accounting officers. Would Congress be satisfied with the decision of 
these officers, who should adopt and credit their pay by the old act of six 
dollars per diem and milage, and balance the account by charging twenty* 
four hundred dollars, instead of some ten thousand, to some of the members 
for the pay and milage of a Congress, for some nine months services ? Would 
this court be satisfied with the discretion which should credit on the books 
of Government, the sum of $1200, instead of the present salary of 54000, 
to each, per annum^ and charge this ^1200 in full, for that salary, leaving 
the books squared, and when you asked for the balance, would you be satis- 
fied with the usual answer? — "That, on examination of the account, there 
does not appear to be any thing further due you \" Suppose you attempt, 
then, to get the balance by a supplimentary Act of Congress, and that should 
pass, would the discretionary power in the President authorise him to veto 
the bill ? If the constitution and laws are to be respected, if, as the con- 
stitution declares, the laws of Congress " shall be supreme," how can Con* 
gress, or any of the officers of the Government, yield this imperative com- 
mand and oath of office, to the unlimited, unrestrained discretion? If 
they can be violated where the officers are not the creditors, they may, with 
equal justice, be applied to them. The violation of these sacred obligation* 
and oath of office, would be the same in either case. 

These obligations cannot be avoided by the omission to examine claims 
which are admitted to be founded on the laws of Congress, and guaranteed 
by the constitution. The discretion of Congress and of this court, can only 
be exercised in conformity to law, and sustaining these just debts, or the re- 
signation of the officers which now imposes an imperative duty to act. There 
are no discretionary power or rules of law which can enable Congress to pass 
a law trebling their own salary, and authorise them to withhold an appropria- 
tion for the payment of these small debts so long due to these creditors, who 
are really tha granters and mortgages of our publi? dqmain, to whom they 



•T 

ar* fiidtbtdd, not only for th« QoTernment, but tbvy, tg will u thi« aotis^ 
fiiT th« plftces they now hold. 

CoDBtituenta and ereditors of this business people, &re demanding mom 
reipect for the rights of property, not only as States, but as individual 
creditors. They are asking that the efforts of their representatives may be 
more devoted to the calls of business of justice and peace, less, much less, 
to exciting influences of polities. 

Having considered the liability of the United States un- 
der the half pay contracts, in their general aspect, I beg 
leave now to call the attention of the court to the evidence 
and the law as applicable to the case at bar for the services of 

CAPTAIN ISAAC HICKS. 

The Government of the United States having established this Court " to 
" hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon 
" any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, express 
** or implied, with the Government of the United States, which may be sug* 
*' gested to it by a petition filed therein, and also all claims which may be 
** referred to said Court by either House of Congress." 

As the solicitor admits in his defence, that this court decided in the case 
of Dr. Baird, that the act of 1783 did not repeal that of 1780, but that it 
was a solid subsisting contract, and binding on the United States, in all cases 
where the party did not receive his commutation. And the court and Con- 
gress having had the question presented in that case of the effect of reception 
of the full amount of the commutation without interest, where too the same 
was paid and received by the party himself without objection, and still far- 
ther, where, as in that case. Congress declared " that amount to be the com- 
mutation for his half pay for life." As I before stated, as this particular 
portion of the defence was expressly and most distinctly presented to Con- 
gress by the decision and argument in that case, it is a legislative construc- 
tion and imperative law in the case at bar. (1) The plaintiff therefore, in 
the present case, asks for no additional Act of Congress. No new rules of 
construction of this court. The present case is free from all the objections 
which are made in that case. The courts and Congress having established 
the question of legal right, the only questions which seem to remain for the 
consideration of the court, are : 

1. Does the claim at bar come within the several Acts of Congress which 
promise half pay for life ? 

2. To what amount was Captain Hicks entitled for his services as Captain 
and regimental paymaster ? 

3. How much was paid, when paid, and by whom paid ? 

4. What balance is now due the plaintiff for these services 'i 



(1) Special act to one is a declaration of the rights of all of the same class of creditors. 

" An invalid pensioner was dropped from the pension roll, but restored by a special act of 
*' Congress; this act siinplj amounted to a legislative declaration that he was entitled j 
" and whenever any subsequent general law increases the pension to which persons ol 
* his rank W«r8 tntitled, is tbercbj increased." (Secretar/ of War — case of Peier W. 
SLotL) 



t3 
BTIDENCB,- 

1. The first position is fully established loy the evidence, and, I beliete, il ^^ 
not controverted. The contract embraced the promise of 300 acres of land * 

as well as half pay, and for which a land warrant, issued as appears by certi* 
ficate of pensions, not until March 12, 1794, No. 1113. See page 8. 

Also, the issuing certificates ; also, the proclamation of Congress. (1) .^^ 

The acts of limitatiou cannot be urged ia defence of the case at bar, inas- o* 

much as the records of the Government show that it was presented at the - 
close of the war, and neither the half pay, nor full pay as paymaster of tho '' '' 

. __ _ _____ — _____ _ . — ..(J idb 

(1) On the ISth October, 1783, (4 vol. Journals by Way & Gideon, p. 299,) Conprress "^"Idl 
adopiei a procUraalion announciutr the pence, and that, in the progress of an arduous ^ 

and difficult war, the armies of the United States of America have eminently displayed 
every military and patriotic virtue, and are not less to be applauded for their fortitude • 
and magnanimity in the most trying scenes of distress, than for a series of heroic and 
illustrious achievements which exalt them to a high rank among the most zealous and 
Buccessful defenders of the rights and liberties of mankind, » » * » •' We, there- 
fore, the Uuiied States, in Congress assembled, thns impressed with a lively sense of thft ij^^H ■■ 
distinguished merit and good conduct of the said aimit-s, do give them the thanks of the 7"^ \k 
couBtr , for their lonjf, eminent and faiih'ul services; and it is our will and pieaenre' '^^* 
th;it such of the f..deral armies as stand engflf!;ed to eervf during the war, and as, by oar ^ " 

acts of 26ih May, the llih dnyof June, the 9th day of August, and the 26lh day of Sep- x? »» 

teraber hist, were furloughed, shall, from and after the 3d day of November next, be ab- ^ » 

solutely discharged, by virtue of this our proclamation, from tho said service; and we 
do also declare that the further services in the field of the officers who are deranged and 
on furloutih, in consequence of our aforesaid acts, can now be dispensed with, and they t. 

have our full permission to retire from service without being longer liable from their • ;. ;-.£,■;: 
Jircsent engagements to be called into command." . , ,. -•^•' ■- f-fH sTqrfw 

Pay by the several acts of Congress, and the question as to the snper'nii- .- ^ 
mery, or constructive service, as it is called, whether relating to half pay or ^-^ 
to bounty land, stand upon the same conditions as prescribed by the same 
words, "service to the end of the war." So decided by Attorney General V 

Cushing, June 7, 1854. Also, in the case of the State of Virginia vs. Lilly, .' 
administrator 1 Leigh, 526 — but is fully settled by the proclamation of 
Congress, (4 vol. of Journals by Way & Gideon, 299,) in which Attorney .1^ 
General Cushing, in coasideriog Virginia bounty land claims, says: •? 

" Here we have the high authority of the Congress of the United States ^4 
" of America in explanation that officers deranged or supernumerary, not in ^^os 
" cotmnand, not in actual service in the field, and on furlough, were yet lia- ^w 

" ble to be called into commnud, and not out of the service, until discharged, - di 
*' from and after the 3d of November, 1783, by the proclamation above cited. 'Od 
" It is believed that the constituted authorities of the United States never i 
" refused to issue a certificate of five years' full pay in commutation of half ^ioioiq 
" pay for life to any one of the numerous officers of the continental army V^ 
" who were thrown out of active service as deranged or superntimerary, hav- Ja 

" ing no command by reason of reduction of the regiments and corps of the ■-• 
" several States, which happened between the resolutions of Congress of 21st '^ -^ 
*' October, 1780, and 22d March, 1783, upon pretence that such deranged, 
" or supernumerary, or furloughed officers were out of service, and did not 
*' serve to the end of the war. All such as applied (it is believed) were ac- 
'' knowledged to be entitled, and received their certificates. Certain it is, 
" that such a refusal would have been unwarranted, and in violation of the ., 

" public faith and of the general priueiplea applicable to co?itraots, as before ■» 

" explained." - > j-.o-:? 



00 Htr regiment, were ever paid or settled, in any way, during all the period of the 

S'*" ' old Confederation. Paymaster Pierce reported all additional pay for staff 

^ ■ service with that of rank, and therefore did not credit anything for his ser- 

•f) vices as paymaster. Whereas it is well settled — 

That tlie Line and Staff Officers could he United. 

00 O&i.iS ^^^ Secretary of the Interior decided, in May 14, 1850, "That one T?ho 
"was both ensign and paymaster, and became supernumerary as paymaster, 

■sssiBasi— " and continued to serve as ensign to the end of the war, was entitled to half 
" pay for life in both grades." He also, on the 27th of January, 1852, 
" said, " That an officer is entitled to half pay, not only for his rank in tbo 
" line, but in the staff also." It is not pretended, as appears in No. 6, pago 
10, that he was ever credited or ever received over S4:,0Sl for all of his ser- 
vices, and was not allowed for services only up to January 1, 1783, whereas 
the proclamation fixes the time of service to the 8d of November, 1783. 

^^. The last act fixes the pay of regimental paymasters, (of January 12, 1781;) 

(,>- and declares their pay to be additional to that of rank, 

X'' The Grovernment having become satisfied that Capt. Hicks had disbursed 

©t'i all the money which went into his hands as paymaster. Let us see how his 

•Vi account stood with the Governmant at the end of the war, 1783 — 

There was due him as Captain for services from Sept. 4, 1776, the date 
of his Commission to Nov. 3, 1783, at §40 per month, being 
17 years, 2 months, 3,440 00 

Also, for paymaster at $30 per month, from August 4, 1778, 
to Nov. 4, 1783, 3 years and 4 months, 1,920 00 

1»«^' 5,360 00 

Deduct paid up to November 3, 1783, §3,610 53 3,610 53 



1,750 47 
Interest on this balance to March 9, 1785, lyear and 4 mo's, 140 02 



1,810 49 
Deduct certificate No. 82876, dated March 17, 1785, 400 00 

1,410 49 
Interest on thia balance to March 7, 1794, 9 years, 761 66 

2,182 15 
To half of Captain's pay, from November 3, 1783, to March 
T, 1794,-11 years and 4 months, 2,720 00 

March 7, 1794, leaving a balance of Captain's pay of 4,992 15 

March 7, 1794, deduct payment by certificate of registered 
debt for 1,638 17 



Here there was a balance due Capt. Hicks, exclusive of 90^1- 
Hutation, (or half pay as paymaster after Nov. 3, 1783,) $3,263 08 

To tJai» balwiod i» ta b» added tua hsli pay a« Captaio, from 



40 

March 4, 1794, to 'June 20, 1817, the time Of his deetb, 5,818 00 

Interest on same to that dat«, 4,306 52 



113,488 50 



To this sum is to be added interest from tfcine 20, 1817, to 
the time of payment. ^ 

Also, half pay as paymaster, from Nov. 3, 1783, at $30 per 
month, (agreeably to act of Jan. 12, 1781,) to June 20, 1817, 6,120 00 

And interest on that sum to day of payment, 

The whole amount of pay credit'^d by the Government to 
Capt. Hicks, is only 4,081. Whereas it will bo seen there was 
due him at that time for pay alone with interest $5,360, payable 
in specie. 

Jljiterest. 

It 'will be remembered by the court, that interest was allowed in the caa* 
of Dr. Baird. Also, the resolve of February 27, 1783, (vol. 4, p. 168,) 
making provision for the settlement of all claims not provided for by any 
previous law of Congress previous to the 1st day of January, 1782, to be 
settled at the treasury, and any balance to be on interest. Also, the resolve 
of June 4, 1784. (1.) The claim for interest is established by the deci- 
sions (2) of the highest authorities. 

(1) Passed June 8, 1794, which provides " That an interest of sir per cent, shall be 
allowed to all the creditors of the United States for supplies furnished or serFices done, 
from the time that payment became due." In alluding to this resolve, Chief Justice 
Gilchrist, of the Court of Claims, in a recent decision says : " No language could be 
" more express or free from doubt than this. The resolution was passed from a feeling 
" that it was just and right that interest should be paid from the time the half-pay be- 
" came due, and it was a voluntary contract on the part of the United States, constitut- 
" ing a legal claim against them which no subsequent legislation could release without 
♦' the consent of the other party"— Thos. H. Baird vs. United States. 

(2) The release by a creditor, or a receipt for the amount of damages due on a bond, 
is not a release of the interest. " The legal right to interest attaches to all contracts for 
the payment of money." — United States vs. Gurney, 4 Cranch Rep. 345. The law ap- 
pears to have been settled in the case of Stockton and Stokes. That the Government 
must render interest in the same manner in which they would be entitled to receive a> 
creditors from their debtors— 12 Peters, 613. 

The rule allowing interest against the United States, is well settled in the ca«e of 
Thorndike in error, vs. United States, 2 Mason, 0. C. Rep. 18. And cannot be repeated 
too often, where the interest was resisted on the ground of sovereignty or the unsua- 
bility of the Government, &c. 

Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said : 

" If the present, then, were a contract between private citizens, there can be no donbt 
that the court would be bound to give interest upon the contract up to the time of pay- 
ment. And if by law the amount due on the contract could be pleaded as a tender or a 
set-off to a private debt, it would be a good bar, to the full extent of the principal and 
interest due at the time of such tender or set-off; nay, more — if the note or promise 
were given by the citizen to the Government, the latter might enforce its claim to the 
like extent. Can it make any difference, in the construction of the contract, that the 
Government is the debtor instead of the creditor ? In rea«on, in justice, in equity, it 
ought to make none ; and there is not a scintilla of law to justify any. And if a suit 
oould be maintained against the Government, I do not perceive why it would not be at 
much the duty of the court to render judgment on such suit for the principal and iater^ 
«it, in the same manner and to the same extent as it would in th» east of prirata eitiaaoi. 
TkM United Statoi hare no prtrogaUr* to daim on* l*w opon Ui«lr qvb ma^tm M 



CL 

Sometimes the Statute of Limitations are urged in Defence of these Claims. 

At common law no lapse of time creates a bar to an action, although it 
may raise a presumption of payment. — Attleborough vs. Middleborough, 10 
Pich'g. So far, however, as relates to these claims, all presumption of pay- 
ment is rebutted by the utter insolvency of the old confederation. 

The limitation of actions is prescribed by 21 James 1. All these statutes 
require that the action shall be commenced within six years — and assumes 
the important fact that there is somebody who can be sued. (1.) Now all 
persons are prohibited the opportunity of suing the U. S. They are only, 
therefore, required to present (2) their claims for settlement within the 

creditors, and another as debtors. If as creditors they are entitled to interest, as debtor! 
they onght to pay it. 

" It has been asked whether, upon all contracts of the GoTcrnment which are not 
strictly performed according to their terms, interest is to be allowed in the same manner 
as upon private contracts ? In point of justice or law, no reason is perceived by the 
court why the Gorernment, if it were suable, ought not to pay what, aa creditor, it could 
compel its own debtor to pay. 

" If a different measure of compensation could be dealt out by .judicial tribunals, in 
my judgment it would seem as little to comport with the dignity of the Government, as 
it does with sound policy and the eternal dictates of justice." 

(1) Where the creditor is deprived of the opportunity of serving a legal proceis 
npon his debtor, it will deprive him during that time of the benefit of the statute. 

" No presumption can arise against a party for not suing in a foreign country, nor 
i' until there is somebody within the jurisdiction whom hecausue." — 2'iGreenleaf, Part 
" 4, 3436—37. 

The statute of limitation cannot be plead by the United States, because by the Judi- 
ciary act of 1789, of the United Stafos, it has been so construed that no individual could 
maintain any suit against them, th^.t there is no person to be sued. If one of the par- 
ties has gone out of the State, his return within the jurisdiction must be open, and such 
as would enable the plaintiff, with reasonable diligence, to serve a process upon him. 
If the defendant concealed himself, except on Sundays, so that he could not be arrested, 
it is net such a return as to bring the case within the operation of the statute. — 2439, 
Fowler vs. Hunt, 10 John, 464, 467; White vs. Bailey, 3 Mass. 271, 273; Byrne v«. 
Crovpninshield, 1 Pich. 263; Little «;j. Blunt, 16 Pich. §259. An acknowledment of a 
debt by one of several joint debtors binds them all. See 441, Patterson vs. Patterson, 
4 Wend, 441. A payment made by one of several joint debtors is evidence against them 
all, §441. So the promise to one of several joint and several payees of a contract is a 
promise to all, and will suspend the statute of limitation as to all the others. 

(2) 1. They were ^rewniec? by their commission duly recorded. 

2. By the resolve of May 20, 1785, and supplementary ordinance of July 9, 1788. In 
the first the Secretary of War is directed to ascertain and return, or present the naiaeg 
of all the officers and soldiers who are entitled to land and to issue warrants. 

3. They were presented by the issuing and recording of their land warrants. There- 
fore ihe Court of Claims, in the case of E. B. Chamberlain and others against the Uni- 
ted States, say that "if Joshua Chamberlain was a captain in the Revolutionary war, 
" as alleged in the petition, the same evidence which would be sufficient to substantiate 
•' the claim for half-pay for life, would establish also the right to the bounty land," 

"The evidence and record of the one would be the evidence and record of the other." 

The payees of the half-pay contract were joint as well as several, and the promise or 
any law which affected one would extend to each and all the others. The land portion 
of the contract was extended to June, 1858, which extended the half pay. 

They vrevQ presented by the admission and restoration of the claim to all the survivors 
of the joint and several obhgees of the half-pay contract under the act of May 15, 1828, 
which restored the right of all the joint and several obligees who were deceased. Con- 
gress, by successive acts, passed at intervals from two to five years, continued to author* 
ize the issuing of military land warrants to the officers and soldiers of the Continental 
lines, whose claims for bounty land remained unsatisfied — the last of which acts of exten- 
sion was passed February 8, 1854, which extended the tima for discharging this portion of 
Ihe contract up to the 26th of Jane, 1858. 

All these claims for half pay for lifa wer» again op«aed, and th«7 were presented by 
#» jQint reiolutiom of tii« dnnU of imwtj ;e, liS^ irhtrfia \\ » n^Kkt^ tiMt ^ 



W 



42 

time, &c. These creditors claiming half pay, contend their contract embraced 
land as well as money, and that by the Ordinances of Congress of May 20, 
1785, and July 9, 1788, the Secretary of War was directed '' to make a re- 
" turn of the names of all who were entitled to land, certify therein the rank 
" or station of each officer, the line, regiment, corps and company, in which 
'• the officer and soldier served." The government cannot say in excuse that 
they have not complied with a positive law of Congress. And this Court in 
the case of Chamberlain vs. U. S., decided the evidence in the land would 
be the same as is required to entitle the claimant to half pay. In the case at 
bar, the account is returned as having been presented, the warrant for 300 
acres land issued in 1794, and was not carried into Patent until 1800. 

The amount for Half Pay is fixed by law, just as much as the number of 
acres of land. When the presentation shall have been proved by the issuing of 
the warrant or Patent, it seems to me to be the highest character of evidence 
of presentation, all of which becomes a matter of law and of record. 
Statutes. of limitation are not looked upon with any degree of favor, and 
dight evidence prevails to avoid their effect. 

The Court of Claims, which was not established until 1855, furnishes the 
only opportunity of the examination of a claim, but there is no power to en- 
force the payment of a judgment of this Court vs. the United States. 

As it has been often held, that the issuing out of process, is so construed 
as to mean any resort to legal means for obtaining payment of the debt, such 
as, filing the claim in set-off, in a former action between the same parties 
which was discontinued. — Hunt vs. Spaulding, 18 Pinch. §521. 

We, in the statement of this claim, allowed to government the full amount 
instead of the value of the certificates charged to Capt. Hicks, and we now 
ask that the balance due the estate for his half pay, with interest, may be 
paid their representatives agreeably to the contracts, which embraced land as 
well as money. The warrant for his land did not issue until 1794, and not 
even then, agreeable to the contract, but embraced in a treat of 4,000, which 
he must defend against the Indians to have his 300 acres, and the patent 
was not issued to him until 1800. There is not an instance to be found 
wherein these contracts have been complied with by the Grovernment. 

I have never had any doubt but these claims are not onl}? justly due, or 
that they are legal subsisting contracts, which could be enforced in any court 
of law, fully authorized to consider the same — nor have I ever seen any law- 
yer who did not conform to my views in this decision. These claims ought 
not to be prejudiced by any lapse of time. They have never abandoned 
their claim or doubted their justice. The early history of the Government 
repudiates all such presumption, as well as possibility of payment. 

I have shown that as early as 1790, by the funding law, all the public 
lands, and all the revenue, were to be applied solely to the payment of the 
funded debts — that all claims funded on obligations, not negotiable, were not 
included, and therefore, for the first succeeding thirty years, there could be 
none paid. Hence Congress to this day, in all bills direct that the sum may 
be payable " out of any money not otherwise appropriated." Then came the 
non-intercourse acts, then a long embai'go, then a second and long war with 
England, when the survivors were again found defending the liberties they 
had acquired. But during all this time the Government was insolvent and 

names of all those who were entitled, and who had not received their land warrants, 
•hould receive the eame. 

The accounts of thesa officer* were a^ain reopened, and their legal rights admittsd bf 
tbii aourt aad Congrsss, in tke cas^ of Sr. Baird — ia ISoft, 1866, m well ag 188G. 



th» people w«re poor, and th« «reitor« of the country were eaoraficed to the 
ravages of war, or war contractors. But there never was the time when 
some one of these joint and several payees was not presenting his claim to 
Congress, never since they were suspended at the departments, but I need not 
cay that most of them were obliged to abandon them in despair. One of 
them came before this court, in the name of the son of Dr. Baird, after 
the father had been worn out and died in the struggle to enforce his claim, 
and in the course of some sixty-one years the legal rights, through this one 
promised, were duly acknowledged by this court and Congress. But it is said 
that these claims ought not to have any preference over any others. No 
more than the indebtedness for a barrel of flour. In the first place, all that class 
of debts weere to be settled and were settled by the several States, and makes a 
part of the 114 millions paid by the States. But the idea of a debt which 
cost a fortune and eight years of the best of life, not being more sacred than 
the same amount purchased for fifty dollars, needs only to be stated to be re- 
futed. These creditors ask merely that the Government should pay the 
balance due on contract. But it is sometimes urged that the Government 
never guaranteed that their certificates should be paid or secured. This rea- 
soning would apply for their land as well as certificates, and if they should 
be ousted for failure of title, the Government would say the claim was too 
old and had never been pressed. Is it not enough to show that all suits 
against the Government were prohibited ? If a banking house shall post up 
a notice that all claims against the same are suspended, and all creditors are 
prohibited demanding the same for sixty years, it would be thought strange 
to set up lapse of time or abandonment of the claim, because a demand was 
not made for payment. Who, I ask again, ought to pay a debt, the creditor 
or the debtor? Has the Government shown that any provision was ever 
made for the payment of these certificates agreeably to the express under- 
standing by the act of January 25, 1783 ? — or made any for the half pay 
debts ? (1) It was the duty of the Government to have allowed the officers, 
in failure of payment or security, to have returned the certificates. (2) 

(1) I have shown that the contract embraced the promise of land as well as 
half pay — and, therefore, as the record of grants to citizens, the law alwa3's presumes 
the Government bound to preserve and protect its citizens in their property and persons. 
No final settlement of these claims could have been presumed until the patent of the 
land had issued. — Story on contracts, chap. 23, pages 16 and 17 — Minor vs. Bradley, 22 
Pich'g 459 . Until that time the officers were merely the factors or bailies of the Gov- 
ernment, as such for said certificates. The party receiving a bill or note, is bound 
etrictly to the performance of all the duties of holder or endorser, as the case may be — 
and until security is due, his right to sue upon his original claim is suspended. So it 
■was with the officers — the right to sue the United States has been ever since the judi- 
ciary act of 1789, not only suspended, but positiYelj prohibited. — See story on Contracts, 
979, chap. 1, page 1083. Upon the dishonor of the bill or note, the original rights of 
the creditor revive, and are the same as if the bill or note had never been given. 

What, therefore, is there to be found in the case at bar, or these claims generally, to 
furnish the slightest evidence, to support the plea, oi accord and satis/action.. I have 
shown that there never was any agreement between these parties to substitute these cer- 
tifica tes unconditionally aa an equivalent, and in satisfaction of the half pay. 

It is a well settled law, that in all cases the thing substituted must be advantageous to 
theeparty accepting it.' It must be in full satisfaction. It must be perfectly executed. 
The facts find, in the present case, that this second contract never was executed — and if 
it had been, there was not the slightest possibility of certainty of payment — that it 
could not have been advantageous to have lost by such a substitute seven-eights of the 
original debt. 

(2.) There was no provision ever made by Congress by which the officers were author- 
ized to return them, provided the interest was not paid annually, nor provided they wers 
not made secure by act of Congress. But it ig well settled by the highest legal authori- 
ties, that an agreement to pay fifty per cent, on the dollar, in full satisfaction of the 



•■«^' 



u 




45 



srnment. Not only so — behold the «xient of our piibli« donaaia 1 (1)— all 
pl«dg«d for the payment of debts. (2. See page 46.) 



STATISTICS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS. 

( 1) Estimate of unsold and unappropriated Lands in each of the States 
and Territories, including surveyed and unsurveyed) offered and unoffered 
lands, on the dOth June, 1856 : 



States and Territories. 



Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Alabama >. • 

Mississippi....... 

Louisiana....; 

Michigan 

Arkansas 

Florida 

Iowa 

Wisconsin 

California 

Minnesota 

Oregon Territory. 
Washington " 
New Mexico " 
Utah " 

Nebraska " 
Kansas " 

Indian " 





Number of 


Acres. 


quarter sec- 




tions. 


43,553 34 


272 


36,307 41 


22t 


511,682 85 


3,198 


13,365,319 81 


83,533 


9,459,367 74 


59,121 


5,519,390 G9 


34,496 


5,933,373 83 


37,083 


10,056,298 06 


62,852 


15,609,542 84 


97,560 


18,067.072 75 


112,919 


6,237,661 03 


38,985 


15,222,549 50 


95,141 


113,682,436 GO 


710,515 


82,502,608 33 


515,641 


118,913,241 31 


743,208 


76,444,055 25 


477,775 


155,210,804 00 


970,067 


134,243,733 00 


839,023 


206,984,747 00 


1,293,655 


76,361,058 00 


477,256 


42,892,800 00 


268,080 



Total 1 1,107,297,572 74 



6,920,607 



THE WESTERN TERRITORIES. 

A comparative statement of the area of the present States with that of the ter- 
ritory destined to be erected into States exhibits the interesting fact that the 
area of the latter in square miles exceeds that of the former. The super- 
ficial area of the Terriiories, organized and unorganized, is set down as fol- 
lows : 

Square miles. 

Kansas Territory 186,000 

Minnesota do 141,000 

Oregon do 227,000 

Washington do 113,000 

Utah do 187,000 

Square miles 1,807,000 

To these Decotah is to be added, of the extent of which ire have seen no estimate. 
The superficial area of the present States is as follows : ^ 



Square miles. 

New Mexico Territory 210,000 

Nebrasco do 528,000 

Mesilla do 78,000 

Indian do 187,000 



46 

(1).— WESTERN TERRITORIES— CoKTiNUBD. 



Square Miles. 

Maine 30,000 

New Hampshire 9,200 

Massachusetts "7,800 

Rhode Island 1,300 

Connecticut 4,6Y4 

Vermont 1 0,211 

New York 46,085 

New Jersey 8,320 

Pennsylvauia 46,000 

Ohio 39,964 

Indiana 33,809 

Illinois.., 55,405 

Wisconsin 53,924 

Michigan' 56,243 

Iowa 50,914 

California 188,000 

622,190 



Sqaar« miles. 

Delaware 3,120 

Maryland 9,674 

Virginia 61, 352 

North Carolina 45,000 

South Carolina 24,500 

Georgia 58,000 

Alabama 50,722 

Florida 53,786 

Louisiana 46,431 

Arkansas 52, 198 

Mississippi 67,380 

Missouri 47, 156 

Tennessee 45,600 

Kentucky 37,680 

Texas 237,321 

838,820 
622,190 

1,461,010 
It is seen that the area of Kansas is nineteen thousand square miles greater than that 
of all New England, New York, and New Jersey; and that the area of Nebraska i« 
ninety-five thousand miles greater than that of all the non-slaveholding States except 
California. Oregon is nearly equal in extent to all New England, New York, Pennsyl- 
vania Ohio and Indiana. It is possible that New Mexico and Mesilla will be embraced 
in one territorial organization by Congress at the present session, containing 288,000 
square miles— exceeding all New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois. Washington exceeds in extent all New England and New York. 

Estimate of the quantities of lamcl ichicJi willinure to the States under grant* 
for railroads vp to June 30, 1857. 
States Acres. Date of Law. 

Tiijnois • 2,595,053 September 20, 1850. 

Mssouri'. i:815:435 June 10, 1852; Feb. 9, 185i. 

Arkansas 1,465,297 February 9, 1853. 

Michigan 3,096,000 June 3, 1856. 

Wigconsin 1,622,800 June 3, 1856. 

T„!!a 3,456,000 May 15, 1856. 

Louisiana 1>2,560 June 3 and Aug. 11, 1856. 

Mississippi 950,400 August 11, 1856. 

iVlissibSippi J- May 17, June 3, and August 

Alabama 1,913,390 -^ U^ 1856, March 3, 1857. 

wloHda 1,814,400 May 17, 1856. 

MSso'ta'.::::.: 4^^ March 3,1857. 

Total 24,247,335 

Statement showing the quantity of Swamp Lands approved to the States up to June 30, 1859 

,,^}-'''- 2t6S%l 

V'^]?'"' 1,250,937 51 

5°!^^*°'' 2 369 140 72 

; »°°^^- 3615 966 5T 

Missouri ' 2595 51 

Alabama 2 834 796 11 

f^^.^^.«^pp^ ; ::;;:: :v:v.".".'.'7,'6oi;535 46 

}'0^}^}^^^ 5 465 232 41 

^^f^g^^ : ... 5 920 024 94 

^sr ■ ■ ::::::;:;:;;:.■.:::;..:: :::: lo 396;982 4? 

wSsin::.::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::: ^a^m^ 

Total , 40,133,564 51 

(2) The twenty-second section of the funding act of August 4, 1790, provides :-- 
" That the proceds of the sales which shall be made of lands in the^ Western lern- 



4T 

The History of these Debts Command a Retrospect of EventSy 

Such as human vision was never before permitted to enjoy. A history, 
which is to the American people, above all price, sacred to humanity through 
out the civilized world — a record of the honor, patriotism, suffering and 
blood of the fathers of our revolutionary struggle — a history of heroic dar- 
ing and perseverance, which surpasses any thing of Greece or Home. I 
will not attempt to describe the value of liberty, and the stupendous results 
and blessings of this G-overnment, to this nation, to humanity, to the world ! 
As well may I attempt to compute the value of the lives of those who were 
killed in the struggle, by weighing the dust of the dead. As the American 
people profess to revere the memory of those brave, patriot ic men ; so may 
this Government make haste to fulfill, at least, the legal abligations, which 
still remain uncancelled. These creditors seek merely the discharge of legal 
obligations. The children and grand-children of these brave men, ask no 
pension or gratuity; they come before this court with the constitution, and 
the solemn contract of the United States in their hand&, and ask, by the 
eternal principles of justice that this contract may be fulfilled. It is true, 
they fought and suffered not for money ; they fought, and bled, and sacri- 
ficed their fortunes for liberty, and to establish the principle-:; of justice ; 
they contended at that early day, while America numbered only three mil- 
lions of people ; her army branded as rebels, surrounded by internal as well 
as external enemies, without pay or security, or the hope of auy reward, yet, 
thank God ! they persevered against all obstacles, and America triumphed, 
and was enshrined a saint, and millions of all lands were ready to worship 
her, not only as a Godess of Liberty, but as a herald of a new millenium 
upon eanh. The eight years war left an indebtedness of some two hundred 
millions of dollars. But the great work of freedom had been finally accom- 
plished. The Government was utterly bankrupt, and the ofiicers and their 
families were suffering for the necessaries of life ; the people as well as army 
were poor, and the many sacred debts against the Government, must neces- 
sarily continue undischarged. There is no doubt that the great mission of 
America, thence forward, was peace ? Public policy dictated it, and justice 
to a generation who had made such sacrifices, demanded it ; her creditors 
and her own poverty required it ; was she true to herself ? Was she just 
to her creditors ? Alas ! let the history of these days answer. The wise 
councils of "Washington were weakened by time, and when America should 
have enjoyed the prosperity and great advantages of a neutral nation, sur- 
rounded then, as now, by a class of speculators, who live and amass fortunes 
by war contracts, America was again turned into a hostile position, then an 
embargo, and, finally, into a second war, and the survivors of these brave 
men were again found defending the liberties, which their eight years previ- 
ous struggle had obtained ; after three years more of strife, and all the 
ealamCties of war, America was again victorious. Will the country be un- 
grateful to the memory of these men ? Our national motto signifying one 
of many, applies to each individual as it does to the United States ; whatever 
is a reproach to the individual is a reproach to the honor of the nation. 



tory now belonging, or that may hereafter belong to the United States shall be and are 
hereby, appropriated towards sinking or disclmrging the debts for the payment where- 
ef the United States now are, or, by virtue of this act, may be holden, and shall be ap- 
plied solttly to that ujee until the s«,id debts ihall be fully BatisSed. ' 



48 

This Government ouglit, tlirough the infljience of her schools, courts, and 
legislatures, to cultivate, in her people, the respect and love of justice, by 
the administration of its divine principles. It should seek to discharge its 
obligations with the same good faith it exacts from its citizens. It must 
pay its debts ! It is vain for this great and rich nation to strive to check 
the hand of the recording angel, as she blots the pages of history with the 
repudiation of her sacred obligations. In vain may the officers of the United 
States Government attempt to obscure the clear vision of justice, or seek to 
change the balance of the scales, she will be weighed and found wanting, in 
spite of her boasted ascendency. We cannot, if we would, and should not, 
if we could, wish to live for ourselves and present generation ; we must live 
and act as well for the future as the present, for good or for evil. The eyes 
of all nations are upon us as a people, while we are viewed as leaders in the . 
progress of the Kuman race. 

We have solved the problem that courts of justice as well as order, can 
be preserved without a standing army — freedom of religious faith enjoyed 
without a national church. 

This is a great commercial and business country, and, I must say, that 
this court, with its relations with Congress, is one of the most important 
tribunals of the United States — a court while its decisions mingle with and 
become a part of the records of the Congress of the United States, is that 
court, above all others, which is to reflect the liberality, justice and honor of 
a great nation. The people are looking forward to the result of your delib- 
erations as a national court, with deep interest. 

In arguing this case, I am aware I have occupied much space, but my own 
connections (in the examining the history of these claims,) have been more 
and more confirmed in their legal right, that they are morally, legally and 
equitably due ; and I have pledged for them what they pledged for the 
country and liberty. I hope I have been able to satisfy this court that these 
claims were stated, and all that was done was so done by the imperative law 
of Congress, which passed, only became the great and imperative necessity 
demanded it, and that the acts of January 25th, March 22nd, and July 4th, 
178oj were all blended, aiid wer * the result of that great exigency of the 
Government, and furnished no excuse for continued suspension of these just 
debts. To all which considerations, I most respectfully and earnestly invite 
the attention of the court, and Congress, and creditors generally, to ex- 
amine the laws herein cited, and I would invoke the aid of ail in the good 
endeavors in behalf of those meritorious, just and legal debts, and as the 
American people profess to revere the memory of Washington. I beg leave 
to add his letter in support of these debts. (1.) 



(l) "The path of our duty is plain before us ; honesty will be found, on every ex- 
periment, to be the best and only true policy. Let us, then, as a nation, be just ; let us 
fulfill the public contracts which Congress had undoubtedly a right to make, for the 
purpose of carrying on the %yar, with the same good faith we suppose ourselves bound 
to perform private engagements. 

"In Ibis state of absolute freedom and perfect security, who will grudge to yield a 
very little of his property to support the common interest of society,- and to insure the 
protection of Government ? Who does not remember the frequent declarations, at the 
commencement of the war, that we should be completely satisfied, if, at the expense of 
one-half, we could defend the remainder of our possessions? 

" Where is the man to be found who wishes to remain indebted for the defence of his 
«wn person and property, to tha exertions, th* bravwy, Rad tba blood of othwi»,Trltho»t 



The creditors of mis Grovemmenf "asfe for justice mihe payment of debts 
long, too long deferred. Daniel Webster s^d, " public opinion of the civil- 
" ized world, may be silenced by military power, but it cannot be conquered. 
" It is elastic, irrepressible and invulnerable to the weapons of ordinary 
'' power. It follows the conqueror back tortbe scenes of bis ovations, and 
" pierces his ear with the cry of injuted jualice — it denounces against him 
" the indignation of a civilized and enlightened age, it turns to bitterness 
" the cup of rejoicing, and wounds him with the sting which belongs to the 
" consciousness of having outraged mankind." .\yj.A'UL 

In all the great progress and improvements among the nations, and the 
extension of our territory, and the rapid increase of the business relations 
of this country, God grant that America may be tme to her great and glori- 
ous destiny — God grant that no worship of false Gods may prevent her enter- 
ance into the promised land, the beautiful Canaan of her future. 

I would only add, that should these suggestions be printed, and find 
their way to any of the creditors, I shall be gland to hear from them. 

NATHANIEL HATCH, 
No. 514, Twelfth Street, , 
Washington, D. C. 



, making the generous effort to pay the debt of honor and gratitude? In what part of 
the continent shall we find a man, or body of men, who would not blush to stand up 
and propose measures purposely calculated to rob the soldier of his stipend, and the 
public creditor of his due ? And were it possible that such a flagrant instance of injus- 
tice could ever happen, would it not excite the general indignation, and tend to bring 
down upon the authors of such measures the aggravated vengeance of Heaven ? 

" As to the idea which I am informed has, in some instances, prevailed, that half pay 
and commutation are to be regarded merely in the odious light of a pensioB, it ought 
to be exploded forever. 

" That provision should be viewed as it really was, a reasonable compensation offered 
by Congress, at a time when they bad nothing else to give to officers of the army for 
services then to be performed. 

" It was the only means to prevent a total dereliction of the service j it was a part of 
their hire. 

«' I may be allowed to say, it wag the price of their blood and your independence.* 

" It was more than a common debt;- it is a debt of honor ; it can never be C0lUi4 
ered »3 a pension or gratuity, nor cancelled until it is fairly diacUarged." 



(7) 



50 



THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 

The following is a correct list of the members elected to the next Con- 
gress, with the names of their post offices attached. The Senate comprises 
66 members ; the House of Representatives 237. 

Four vacancies are to be filled in the Senate from the following States, 
vi;? : -Texas, California, Minnesota and Oregon. : 

SENATORS. 



MAINE. 

Hannibal Hamlin, B., Hampden 
Wm P Fessenden, R., Portland 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

Daniel Clark, R., Manchester 
John P Hale, R., Dover 

VERMONT. 

Solomon Foot, R., Rutland 
Jacob Collamer, R., Woodstock 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Charles Sumner, R., Boston 
Henry Wilson, R., Natick 

RHODE ISLAND. 

Jas F Simmons, R., Providence 
H B Anthony, R., Providence 

CONNECTICUT. 

Jas Dixon, R., Hartford 
L F S Foster, R., Norwich 

NEW YORK. 

Preston King, R,, Ogdensburg 
Wm H Seward, R. Auburn, Cayuga 
county 

NEW JERSEY. 

John R Thompson, D., Princeton 
*J C Ten Eyck, R., Burlington 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Sim6n Cameron, R., Harrisburg 
Wm Bigler, D., Clearfield 

DELAWARE. 

Jas A Bayard, D., Wilmington 
*W Saulsbury, D., Georgetown 

MARYLAND, 
Jas A Pearce, D., Chestertown 
Anthony Kennedy, S. 0., Baltimore 

VIRGINIA. 
Jas M Mason, D., Winchester 
'..a M T Hunter, D., Loyds, Essex 
^^'^- eounty 



*Thos Bragg, D., 



NORTH CAROLINA. 

Raleigh 
Thos L Clingman, D., Ashville 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Jas H Hammond, D., Beech Island 
Jas Chesnut, D., Camden 

GEORGIA. 

Robert Toombs, D., Washington 
A Iverson, D., Columbus 

ALABAMA. 

Benjamin Fitzpatrick, D., Wetumpha 
G C Clay, jr., D., Huntsville 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Jefferson Davis, D., Hurricane, War- 
ren county 
A Gt Brown, D., Terry, Hind's county 

LOUISIANA. 

J P Benjamin, D., New Orleans 
John Slidell, D., New Orleans 

OHIO. 

Benj F Wade, R., Jefferson 
Gr E Pugh, D., Cincinnati 

KENTUCKY. 

*L W Powell, D., Henderson 

John J Crittenden, S. 0., Frankfort 

TENNESSEE. 

*A P Nicholson, D,, Columbia ' 
Andrew Johnson, D., Grreenville 

INDIANA. 

Jesse D Bright, D., Jeffersonvill« 
Graham N Fitch, D., Logansport 

ILLINOIS. 

Stephen A Douglas, D., Chicago 
Lyman Trumbull, R., Alton 

MISSOURI. 

Trusten Polk, D., St Louis 
Jaa S Green, D., Canton 



51 



ARKANSAS. 

Wm K Sebastian, D., Helena 
Robert W Johnson, D., Pine Bluff 

MICHIGAN. 

Zachariah Chandler, R., Detroit 
*K S Bingham, R., Kensington 

FLORIDA. 

D L Yulee, D., Homapassa 
SRMallory, D.,KeyAVest 

TEXAS. 

*John Hemphill, D., Austin 
Vacancy 

IOWA. 

Jas Harlan, R., Mt Pleasant 
*Jas W Grimes, R., Burlington 

WISCONSIN, 

Jas R Doolittle, R., Racine 
C Durkee, R., Kenosha 

CAIFORNIA. 

Wm M Gwin, D., San Francisco 

Vacancy 

MINNESOTA. 
Henry M Rice, D., St Paul 
Vacancy 

OREGON. 

Jos Lane, D., Winchester 
Vacancy 



*New Senators 



RECAPITULATION. 

Democrats 38 

Republicans 24 

Southern Opposition 2 

Vacancies 4 

:o: 

REPRESENTATIVES. 

MAINE. 

1 Daniel B Somes, R., Biddeford 

2 John J Perry, R., Oxford 

3 Ezra B French, R., Damariscotta 

4 *Freeman H Morse, R.,Bath 

5 *Israel Washburn, jr, R., Orono 

6 *Stephen C Foster, R., Pembroke 

NEW HAMPSHIEB. 

1 Gilman Marston, R., Exeter 

2 *Mason W Tappan, R., Bradford 

3 Thos M Edwards, R., Keen© 



VERMONT. ■" ^■'' 

1 *E P Walton, R., Montpelicr 

2 *Justin S Morrill, R., Stafford 

3 *Homer E Royce, R., East Berk- 

shire 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

1 Thos D Eliot, R., New Bedford 

2 *Jas Buffinton, R., Fall River 

3 Chas F Adams, R., Quincy 

4 Alexander H Rice, R., Boston 

5 *Anson Burlingame, R., Cam- 

bridge 

6 John B Alley, R., Lynn 

7 *Daniel W Gooch, R., Melrose 

8 Chas R Train, R., Framingham 

9 *Eli Thayer, R,, Worcester 

10 Chas Delano, R., Northampton 

11 *Henry L Dawes, R., Adams 

RHODE ISLAND. 

1 Christopher Robinson, R., Cum- 

berland 

2 *Wm D Brayton, R., Warwiok 

CONNECTICUT. * 

1 D wight Loomis, R., Rockville 

2 John Woodruff, R., New Haveu 

3 Alfred A Burnham, R., Windham 

4 Orris S Ferry, R., Norwalk 

NBWXORK. 

1 Luther Carter, R., Flushing 

2 Jas Humphrey, R., Brooklyn 

a *Daniel E Sickles, D., New York 

4 *Thos J Barr, D., New York 

5 *Wm B Maclay, D., New York 

6 *John Cochrance, D., New York 

7 Geo Briggs, A., New York 

8 *Horace F Clark, A. L. D., New 

York 

9 *John B Haskin, A. L. D., Ford- 

ham 

10 Chas H Van Wyck, R., Bloom- 

ingburg 

11 Wm S Kenyon, R., Kingston 

12 Chas L Beale, R., Kinderhook 

13 *Abraham B Olin, R., Troy 

14 fJohn H Reynolds, A. L. D., Al- 

bany 

15 James B McKean, R., Saratoga 

Springs 

16 *Geo W Palmer, R., Plattsburg 

17 *Francis E Spinner, R., Mohawk 

18 *Clark B Cochrane, R., Schenec- 

tady "iU 'd Vi 



52 



NEW YORK— -(Continued.) 

19 Jas H Graham, R., Delhi 

20 RoBCoe Conkling, R., Utica 

21 R Holland Duell, R., Courtland 

Village 

22 M Lindsley Lee, R., Fulton 

23 *Chas B Hoard, R., Watertown 

24 Chas B Sedgwick, R., Syracuse 

25 Martin Butterfield, R., Palmyra 

26 *Emory B Pottle, R., Naples 

27 Alfred Wells, R., Ithaca 

28 Wm Irvine, R., Corning 

29 Alfred Ely, R., Rochester 

30 Augustus Frank, R., Warsaw 

31 *Silas M Burroughs, R., Medina 

32 Elbridge Gr Spaulding, R., Buf- 

falo 

33 *Reuben E Fenton, R., Frews- 

burg 

NEW JERSEY. 

1 John T Nixon, R., Bridgeton 

2 John L N. Stratton, R., Mount 

Holly 

3 *Garnett B Adrain, D., New 

Brunswick 

4 Jettir R Riggs, D., Paterson 

5 Wm Pennington, R., Newark 

PENNSYLYASIA, - 

1 *Thomas B Elorence, D.^ Phila. 

2 *Edward Joy Morris, R., do 

3 John P Verree, R., 'do 

4 Wm Millward, R., do 

5 John Wood, R., Conshoboeken 

6 *f John Hickman, R., Westches- 

ter 

7 Henry C Longnecker, R., Allen- 

town 

8 John Schwartz, A. L. D., Read- 

ing 

9 Thaddeus Stevens, R., Lancaster 

10 John W Killinger, R., Lebanon 

11 James H Campbell, R., Pottsville 

12 George W Scrantoa, R., Scranton 

13 *Wm H Dimmick, K, Hones- 

dale : . . - ':', 

14 'Galushs. A Grow, R.^ GlenwooA 

1 5 Jas T Halfl, B . , Bellefoute 

16 Benjamin F Juukin, E., Bloom- 

field i - 

17 Edward McPhersom, R., Getty.?- 

burg 
1% Sam'l S Blair, R., Huntingdon 



PENNSYLVANIA— (Continued. ) 

19 *John Covode, R., Lockport Sta- 

tion 

20 *Wm Montgomery, D., Washing- 

ton 

21 Jas K Moorhead, R., Pittsburg 

22 Robert McKnighfc, R., Alleghany 

City 

23 *Wm Stewart, R., Mercer 

24 Chapin Hall, R., Warren 

25 Elijah Babbit, R., Erie 

DELAWARE. 

I *- William G Whiteley, D., New 

Castle 

MARYLAND. 

1 » James A Stewart, D., Cambridge 

2 Edward H Webster, S. 0., Bel- 

leair 
8 *J Morrison Harris, S. 0., Balti- 
more 

4 *H Winter Davis, S. 0., Balti- 

more 

5 * Jacob M Kunkel, D., Frederick 

6 Geo W Hughes, D., West River 

VIRGINIA, 

I 1 *Museoe R H Garnett, D., Loyds, 
j ' Essex CO 

I 2 *John S Millson, D., Norfolk 
o Dan'l C Dejarnette, D., Bowling 
Green 

4 Roger A Pryor, D., Petersburg 

5 *Thos S Bocock, D., Appomattox 

CH 

6 Shelton F Leake, D., Charlottes- 

ville 

7 *Wm Smith, D., Warrenton 

8 Alexander R Boteler, S. 0., Shep- 

herdstown 

9 John T Harris, D., Harrisonburg 
10 *Sherrard Clemens, D., Wheeling 

II *Albert G Jenkins, D., Green 

Bottom 
12 ^Ilenry A Edmundson, D., Salem 
18 Elbert S Martin^ D.. Lee C H 
) -I I .:;;). : Aio:aTH Carolina. 
i; Wm N H Smith, S. ,0., Murfrees- 
' ; boro' "■•■' ' 

2 ♦Tllos Ruitla, D., Gnldsbov.^ 

3 i WaiTec Winslow, D,, Fayette- 

ville 

4 -Lawrence O'JP. Branch, D., Ba- 

leigli;09>t ^.ii ,2i;-n!v/ijH ih aoUT o 



63 



NORTH CAROLINA— (Continued.) 

5 *John A Gilmer, S. 0., Greens- 

boro' 

6 Jas M Leach, S. 0., Lexington 

7 ■'■Burton Craige, P., Salisbury 

8 *ZebuIon B Vance, S. 0., Ashe- 

ville 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

1 ^-John McQueen, D., Society Hill 

2 *Wm Porcher Miles, D., Charles- 

ton 

3 ••■■Lawrence M Keitt, D., Orange- 

burg 

4 *Milledge D Bonham, E., Edge- 

field 

5 John D Ashmore, D., Anderson 

6 *Wm W Boyce, D., Winnsboro' 

GEORGIA. 

1 Peter E Love, D., Thoniasville 

2 *Martin J Crawford, D., Columbus 
8 Thos Hardeman, jr, S. 0., Macon 

4 *Lucius J Gattrell, D., Atlanta 

5 John W Underwood, D,, Rome 

6 #Jame3 Jackson, D., Athens 

7 ■» Joshua Hill, S. 0., Madison 

8 John J Joneis, D., Lester's Dis- 

trict 

ALABAMA. 

1 *Jas A Stallworth, D., Evergreen 

2 Jas L Pugh, D., Eufaula 

3 David Clopton, D., Crawford 

4 *Sydenham Moore, D., Greens- 

boro' 

5 *Geo S Houston, D., Athens 

6 * Williamson R W Cobb, D., Belle- 

fonte 

7 *Jabez L M Curry, D., Talladega 

MISSISSIPPI. 

1 *Luciu3 Q G Lamar, D., Abbe- 

ville 

2 *E.euben Davis, D., Aberdeen 

3 *Wm Barksdale, D., Columbu?? 
4- *Ott? II SinglenoD, D., Canton 
6 "John J McRae, !)., State Line 

LOUI,-IA.XA. 

1 Edwavu Bouligny, S. 0., New 

OrleaL'.s 

2 *Miles Taylor, D., Donald!?onviilo 

3 *Thos Green Davidson, D., Baton 

Rouge 
4 Landr^m, D., 



OHIO. 

1 *Georgc H PendletOn, iD., Cincin- 

nati 

2 John A Gurley, R., Cincinnati 

3 *Clement L Vallandigham, D.] '' 

Dayton 

4 Wm Allen, D., Greenville 

5 Jas M Ashley, R., Toledo 

6 Wm Howard, D., Batavia 

7 Thos Corwin, R., Lebanon 

8 *Benjamia Stanton, R., Bellefon- 

taine 

9 John Carey, R., Carey 

10 Carey A Thimble, R., Chillicothe 

11 Chas D Martin, D., Lancaster 

12 -Sam'l S Cox, D., Columbus 

13 *Johu Sherman, R., Mansfield 

14 Harrison G Blake, R., Medina 

15 Wm Helmick, R., New Philadel- 

phia • 

16 *Cydnor B Tompkins, R., McCon- 

nellsville 

17 Thos C Thcaker, R., Bridgeport 

18 Sidney Edgerton, R., Akron 

19 -Edward Wade, R., Cleveland 

20 John Hutchins, R., Warren 

21 *John A Bingham, R., Cadiz 

KENTUCKY. 

1 *Henry C Burnett, D., Cadi^: 

2 «Sam'l Peyton, D., Hartford 

3 Francis M Bristow, S. 0., Elkton 

4 Wm C Anderson, S. O., Danville 

5 John Y Brown, D., Elizabeth- 

town 

6 Green Adams, S. 0., Barbours- 

ville 

7 Robt Mallory, S. O., La Grange 

8 Wm E Sims, D., Paris 

9 Laban T Moore, S. 0., Louisa 
10 ■••John W Stevenson, D., Coving- 
ton , '■ 

''''^'^•''i'ESNESSEE. 

1 Thcs A R Nelson, S. 0., Jones - 

boro' 

2 *noraee Maynard, S. 0., Knox- 

ville 

3 Reese B Brabson, S. 0., Chatta- 

uuog'i 

4 Will h Stokes, kS. 0., SMithville 
•5 Rnbt Hatfcon, S. 0., Lebanon 

6 Jas H Thomas, D., Columbia 

7 «John V Wright, D., Purdy 



54 



TENNESSEE — (Continued.) 

8 James M Quarlee, S. 0., Clarkes- 

viile 

9 Emerson Betheridge, S. O., Dres- 

den 
10 *Wm T Avery, D., Memphis 

INDIANA. 

1 *Wm E Niblack, D., Vincennes 

2 *Wm H English, D., Vienna 

3 Wm M Dunn, R., Madison 

4 AVm S Holman, D., Aurora 

5 *David Kilgore, E.., Muncietown 

6 Albert G- Porter, R., Indianapolis 

7 *John Gr Davis, A. L. D., Rock- 

ville 

8 * James Wilson, R., Crawfords- 

ville 

9 »Schuyler Colfax, R., South Bend 

10 *Chas Case, R., Fort Wayne 

11 *John U Pettit, R., Wabash 

^ILLINOIS. 

1 *Ellihu B Washburne, R., Galena 

2 John J Farnsworth, R., St. 
Charles 

8 *Owen Lovejoy, R., Princeton 
4 *Wm Kellogg, R., Canton 
6 *Isaac N Morris, D., Quincy 

6 John A McClernand, Springfield 

7 Jas C Robinson, D., Marshall 

8 Phillip B Fouke, D., Belleville 

9 John A Logan, D., Benton 

MISSOURI. 

1 J Richard Barrett, D., St Louis 

2 =*Thos L Anderson, D., Palmyra 

3 *Jno B Clarke, D., Fayette 

4 ^Jas Craig, D., St Joseph 

5 Sam'l H Woodson, D., Indepen- 
dence ,^:;;^: 

6 *John S Phelps, D., Springfield 

7 John W Noell, D., Perry ville 



ARKANSAS. 

1 Thofl C Hindman, D., Helena 

2 Albert Rust, D., Little Rock 

MICHIGAN. 

1 Geo B Cooper, D., Jackson 

2 *Henry Waldron, R., Hillsdale 

3 Francis W Kellogg, R., Grand 

Rapids 

4 *De Witt C Leach, R., Lansing 

FLORIDA. 

1 *Geo S Hawkins, D., Pensacola 

TEXAS. 

1 *John H Reagan, D., Palestine 

2 A J Hamilton, D., Austin 

IOWA. 

1 *Sam'l R Curtis, R., Keokuk 

2 WmVandever, R,, Dubuque 

WISCONSIN. 

1 *John F Potter R., East Troy 

2 *Cadwallader C Washburn, R., La 

Crosse 

3 Chas H Larrabee, D., Horicon 

CALIFORNIA. 

1 *Chas L Scott, D., Sonora 

2 John C Burch, D., Weaverville 

MINNESOTA, 

1 Cyrus Aldrich, R., Chatfield 

2 Wm Windon, R., Winona 

OREaON. 

1 Lancing Stout, D. 

DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO. 

Miguel A Otero, D., Albuquerque 

DELEGATE FROM UTAH. 

Hooper, 

DELEGATE FROM WASHINGTON. 

Isaac I Stevens, D., Olympia 

DELEGATE FROM NEBRASKA. 

E Eastabrook, D., Omaha City 



Members of the last Congress. 



55 
RECAPITULATION. 



States. 



O g 



^ 2 

O Ph 



Ph 
pa 



o o 

<1 



Pi 
P. 

o 



Maine 

New Hampshire. 

Vermont 

Massachusetts.... 

Rhode Island 

Connecticut 

New York* 

New Jersey 

Pennsylvaniaf ... 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia... 

North Carolina... 
South Carolina... 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louuisiana 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

Ohio 

Michigan 

Illinois 

Indiana' 

Missouri 

Florida. 

Texas 

Iowa 

Wisconsin 

California 

Oregon 

Minnesota 



6 
3 
3 

11 
2 
4 

33 
5 

25 
1 
6 

13 



7 
5 
4 
2 

10 

10 

21 

4 

9 

11 

7 

1 

2 

2 



237 



6 
3 
3 

11 
2 
4 

26 
3 

21 



15 
3 
4 

7 



114 



4 

2 

3 
1 
3 
12 
4 
6 
6 
7 
5 
3 
2 
3 
5 
6 
1 
5 
3 
7 
1 
2 



95 



23 



* Reynolds classed as an Anti-Lecompton Democrat. 

t Hickman classed as a Republican. , . 

Necessary to a choice, 119. Republicans lack, to make a majority, 5. Democrats 
•ombined lack, to make a majority, 19 ; Democrats and Southern Opposition combined 
bav« a majority 07«r the Republicans of 9. 



lii 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 800 529 6 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



